HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2009
STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Ave. July 6,2009 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to
participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you
are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA .1. 2. 4. 9,. Keith Reester, Public Works Director, City of Loveland. "Funding Transportation in Tough
Times" (Invited to speak by Mayor DiTullio) Citizen's Budget Oversight Committee (CBOC) Report Building Division Assessment Report Off-Street Parking Surfacing Requirements Update Staff
Reports( s) • Amendments to Business Licensing Requirements A. Ordinance Amending WRMC Section 11-22, Conducting Business in a City Without a Valid License. B. Ordinance Amending Section
11-22, Requirement of a License Collect City Taxes. • National Night Out/Open House Update
, • < .' . ~ City of • '~Wheat~dge ~OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Mayor DiTullio DATE: June 24, 2009 SUBJECT: Funding Transportation in Tough Times, an Informational
Presentation Keith Reester, Public Works Director of the City of Loveland spoke at the CML Conference that [ attended earlier this month. The topic of his presentation, "Funding Transportation
in Tough Times" was both interesting and informative. [asked Keith to present to City Council, the Budget Oversight Committee, and City staff. At my request, Keith has made arrangements
to attend the July 6'h Study Session and will present the topic in a form similar to his presentation in Vail. Keith will also be available following the Study Session for questions
and comments from all parties involved. A copy of Mr. Reester's presentation is attached. /js
.. • • c ) (J) 1-0 0 N ....J en (~) CD /E •
• •
• •
• • •
-(3. CD ~ • •
• •
• • •
• • •
• Street Fee Revenue 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 TI7~-=; 600,000 400,000 200,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 COMMERCIAL • RESIDENTIAL I • •
• ~ Actual Numbers 2007 Category Revenue Commercial Institutional Mixed Retail Mixed Use Residential Retail High T raffle Retail Industrial Retail HigII Commeral IMtitution81 Mixed Retalil
Mixed Use Residential Tr.ffic Retalil Indlntriol I FEES $57,080 $181 ,855 $12,044 $11,496 $443,990 $150,011 $412,603 $105,516 • •
, .. ~' • r City of • '~WheatBLdge ~OFFICE OFTHE CrTYTREASURER Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Schulz, Treasurer DATE: June 26, 2009 SUBJECT: Citizens' Budget Oversight
Committee The CBOC Committee has been busy. We have completed presentations and Q's and A's with representatives of all City Departments. We have also heard from some local businesses
and the Executive Director of the Colorado Municipal League. It turns out that most cities are facing the same questions Wheat Ridge is trying to answer. Materials from several municipalities
around the country have been circulated to the Committee. On June 25 we met with City Attorney Gerald Dahl regarding distinctions between taxes and fees . Committee members have identified
potential spending reductions and potential additional revenue sources. The sheet attached lists the recommendations as agreed following the most recent meeting, June 25, 2009. The Committee's
recommendations include both relatively low impact actions and some very significantly impactful alternatives. The list will be ranked, using quantitative criteria, also attached. The
Committee will hold an additional meeting on July I in the second floor conference room. The final recommendations will be presented to Council on July 6, 2009. The Committee appreciates
that it is easier to be objective when we are somewhat detached from the decision process and recognizes the challenges faced by Council. But, we also know this is not an academic exercise.
It is necessary that Council take some deliberate action to improve Wheat Ridge's very real financial dilemma. We look forward to meeting with you on July 6, 2009. Attachments: I. CBOC
Ranking sheet 2. Ranking Criteria 3. Service Fee Memo from Gerald Dahl, dated June 25, 2009
Citizens' Budget Oversight Committee Ranking Sheet Member: Short Term Cost Reduction Recommendations Cavarra I Goal: Make recommendations that will reduce the widening gap between revenue
and operating costs, and also provide funds for capital Hansen Holcer Holcer Schulz I·toker Hansen 1-1 1-3 1-4 Hansen 1·5 Jorgenson 1-9 expenditures Goal: Restore City Budget to 2008
level. 0' ehm;".',e funding for WR a city-wide aU Inclusive furlough of no more than one pay period Delay Parks improvements and capital purchases --; lighting schedule and procedures--often
lights are seen on well after Long Term Recommendations Revenue: Cavarra II Holcer 11-2 Rotota and 11·3 Jorgenson Hansen, and Holcer Cavarra, 11-5 Hansen and Holcer Schulz 11-6 Jorgenson
11-7 and Schulz 1. Goal: Recommend new sources of revenue andlor increase the level of eJl.isting sources. These SOurces of revenue should:(a) Reduce City's reliance on sales taJl.,
(b) Increase revenue from sectors that are not currently contributing a reasonable Goal: Instill structures that will place City on sound financial footing and policies that will encourage
commercial development and residential i Ii To stimulate I activity, consider a brief permit free period for including automobiles, RV's and Trailers sold to nonresidents @$X.OO/sale
or a percentage of sale price $2/month employment head tax. Implement a tax system similar to Denver and Greenwood I Property owners would be assessed a tax. This could also fund the
proposed rental property inspection ATTACHMENT 1
Hansen 11-8 and Holcer ConSider property tax 5750000 I I I I increase --3.66 milts levy I 0 Schulz 11·9 In coordination with other I I I I I municipalities, investigate ! I and consider
extending 1 sales taxation to selected I ! services. Identify services i and model the revenue ! I potential. I , 01 Rotola 11-10 Create a City Street I i i Maintenance utility to be
used I for City-wide infrastructure I , maintenance improvements. I Example: $3D/year for residents and $6Dfyear for Ie 0 Hansen 11·14 Increa se court fines and ! fees -Audit existing
fees to 1 J determine their adequacy in covering costs. i Schulz 11·15 Increase Economic ! Development emphasisemploy a highly qualified and experienced ED Manager in-house or by , contra
ct. Structure earnings around incentives I I 01 for accomplishments. Schulz 111·8 Establish a Public Safety I I I Fee to support Police and I other safety aspects--Approx $50 I Property
I 0 Cost Reductions •• longer Term: Cavarrra III 2. Goal: The CBOC is impressed with the staffs staffs dedication and commitment to serving the community. However, department heads are
currently functioning within standard parameters. The goal of the CBOC is to offer recommendations that are non· traditional Cavarrra 111-1 Payroll Costs --Streamline processes and increase
use of technology. Replace some positions with on call contractors who would work only during peak times. Freeze hiring and wage increases. Freeze hiring and wage I Cavarrra 111-2 Interagency
Agreements Consider further interagency mutually benefICial agreements to either take advantage of other municipalities' expertise and to offer Wheat Ridge Cavarra 1II-3 iii ' Rotola
111-6 Cavarra 1II-7 , a-Park program to reduce park maintenance costs.
Wheat Ridge Citizens' Advisory Committee Recommendations Ranking Table Criteria 1 Point 3 Points 5 Points Feasibility -could it New administrative Implementation will Administration
can be be done? Public accounting will be require alterations to accomplished using support throug h a required. Extensive existing administrative existing vote for tax or business/resident
systems and software. finance/accounting acceptance of a fee? education efforts are infrastructure. necessary. Effective -will it It is not clear whether Analysis shows The data is very
clear provide the desired the action would yield promise -but does and quantitative -it impact? the estimated result not indicate will produce desired predictable results. savings/revenues.
Fairness -Will it be The savings/revenue I mpact will be felt by The proposal clearly perceived as even-will be seen as business and impacts all residents; handed? Does the affecting
a few. residents; will provide annual return will be yield or savings justify a net advantage over four or more times the effort? costs of administrative effort. administration. Time
required for Implementation will Implementation will Political, legal, and enactment and take two budget years take more than one administrative hurdles implementation. or more from
year and possibly can be resolved in 6 enactment. hampered by legal to 18 months. and political issues. Sustainability -Will Demographic and Success will depend The action is integral
it stand the test of economic shifts may upon economic to the City's ongoing time? enhance/detract from success of a limited economy and results anticipated area of the City's will continue
savings/revenue economy. indefinitely. ATTACHMENT 2
M U RRAY DA~L Ku c;:c::a ..... k:N ..... 1i: 1ST Ii:R RENAUD LLP "TTmL~F.\·SAT I,"" w • 2 4 01 15th st:re.et Suite 200 Denvel'". Colorado 80202 Phon e 303..493 .. 6670 Fax 303.477 ..
0965 TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Citizens Budget Oversight Committee Mayor & Council Gerald Dahl Brittany Scantland June 25, 2009 Service Fees The Committee has asked that we
provide information on service fees. We will present this outline at our meeting June 25. This memo discusses that question in 3 parts: (1) how such a fee might be defined in the eyes
of a reviewing court; (2) how the fee may be calculated; and (3) what to avoid when creating such a fee. I. Defining a Service Fee A service fee can be imposed for a variety of services;
including storm water, streets, street lighting, police services, or conceivably any city-provided service. The fee would offset the cost of the service. The Colorado Supreme Court case
of Bloom v. City of Fort Collins, 784 P.2d 304 (Colo.1989) discusses the imposition of such a fee and also provides a useful "dictionary" of terms for various forms of existing fees
and taxes. The case has not been questioned or disputed, and remains the best authority on the subject. (The other cases cited in this memorandum further support and rely on Bloom).
A. The Transportation Utility Fee in Bloom In Bloom, the City of Fort Collins acted by ordinance to impose a transportation utility fee ("TUF") on owners or occupants of any developed
lots or parcels of land within the city (fronting a public right of way) for the purpose of providing revenues for maintenance of local streets. The fee was billed with the monthly utility
bill for those lots utilizing city utilities and was billed separately for lots not using such utilities. In 1985, several owners and/or occupants of developed real property filed a
class action seeking relief on the basis that the fee was an invalid tax. The city argued that the fee was not a tax, but a special fee which was similar to other municipal fees, previously
upheld by the Colorado courts. Ultimately, the Court upheld the fee as a "special fee" and not an impermissible property tax. In reaching its decision, the Court used the definitions
set forth below. ATTACHMENT 3
B. Definition Taxes, Assessments and Fees The Bloom opinion analyzed the fee as against these forms of municipal charges to determine which accurately described the fee: an excise tax,
a special assessment or a service fee (or special fee). 1. Excise Tax First, the Court considered an excise tax, which it defined as follows: "[a] tax imposed on the performance of some
act, event, or occurrence, with the tax itself made a condition precedent to the act, event, or occurrence." Bloom at 310. The Court concluded that the fee was not a condition precedent
to any act, event, or occurrence. It was simply a fee. A property owner was not required to pay it in order to take some further action. The Court further concluded that owning property
fronting a public right of way was not analogous to a special privilege, another situation in which an excise tax might be imposed, thus the TUF was not an excise tax. 2. Special Assessment
Next, the Court concluded the TUF was not a special assessment. Because the fee did not "require that the revenues generated by the fee be applied to enhance the value of the properties
assessed in an amount at least equal to the burden imposed," it was not a special assessment. Bloom at 310. Stated another way, because the property owners were not paying the fee specifically
to enhance their particular properties in a unique way, the fee was not a special assessment. Rather, the fees collected were to be used to maintain city streets without regard to anyone
specific property. 3. Special Fee Finally, the Court considered whether the fee was a special fee. The Court defined a special fee as: "a charge imposed on persons or property and reasonably
designed to meet the overall cost of service for which the fee is imposed." Bloom at 310. The Court reasoned that the fee was for the purpose of defraying the expense connected with
the operation and maintenance of city streets. The owners and occupants of the developed lots subject to the fee received the benefits of a program of city maintenance calculated to
provide effective access to and from residences, buildings, and other areas within the city. Bloom at 310. The Court concluded the transportation utility fee was a special fee, and where
a municipality "imposes a special fee upon owners or occupants of developed lots fronting city streets for the purpose of providing revenues for the maintenance of city streets, and
where the fee is reasonably designed to defray the cost of the service provided by the municipality, such fee is a valid form of governmental charge within the legislative authority
of the municipality." Bloom at 311 . 2
C. Service Fees not Affected by TABOR Bloom was decided prior to the passage of TABOR. In 2005, Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 131 P.3d 1187 (Colo.App. 2005) was decided. A copy
of the opinion is attached. In Bruce, the plaintiff argued that a city street light service fee amounted to a tax, rather than a service (special) fee. Ultimately, the Court found in
favor of the city. The Court in Bruce went on to state that it was required to follow Bloom and cases following from it even though the definition of "special fee" in Bloom might lead
to almost any governmental service being structured as a fee, thereby escaping TABOR. Bruce at 1191 . In essence, Bruce recognized the wide range of fees that governments may impose
without having them characterized as impermissible taxes. The Bloom and Bruce courts cited several other fees which have been acknowledged as special fees, rather than impermissible
taxes or assessments: Sewage service fees upon apartment building owners which were reasonably related to the the objective of defraying the cost of municipal sewage service; Annual
fees on each household to meet cost of providing emergency medical services, excepting those households serviced by another emergency service company; Fees imposed on rental units to
defray cost of administering hearing; Building permit fees reasonably designed to defray costs of municipal regulation; Bloom at 308. Wastewater treatment fees; Highway expansion fees;
Storm drain and flood management fees; Public transportation fees; Sewer service fees; Water system fees; Airport user fees; Bruce at 1190. In sum, if the fee was reasonably designed
to defray the cost of the service provided by the municipality, it was upheld. D. Application to City Service Fees Applying the rationale of Bloom and Bruce, it appears that most City
service fees would be considered special fees by the Colorado Supreme Court. The interpretation of Bloom and Bruce would suggest that such fees would be appropriate only if they were
reasonably designed to defray to to cost of the specific service. It is important to remember that such a fee could not be used to raise City revenues to defray the City's general operation
expenses generally. See Bloom at 308. II. Calculation of the Fee Bloom and its progeny also provide guidance regarding how special fees can be calculated. Specifically, Bloom held that
the amount of the special fee must be reasonably related to the overall costs of the particular governmental service being supported; however, mathematical exactitude is not required.
The particular mode adopted by the city in assessing the fee is generally a matter of legislative discretion. Bloom at 308. Thus, a city council has great flexibility in how it calculates
fees. 3
In Bloom, the monthly fee assigned to property owners was a base rate (which included a maintenance cost per foot of frontage) multiplied by the amount of frontage the property occupied
multiplied by a number equating to the amount of traffic the property generated, estimated based on its use. As previously discussed, this method of calculating the fee was upheld. In
Bruce, the city determined the street light service fee based on whether the property was residential or commercial, the relative amounts of residential and commercial property in the
city and the total estimated expense in operating the street lights. Like Bloom, the Bruce Court held that an ordinance creating a special service fee will be upheld as long as the ordinance
is reasonably designed to defray the cost of the particular service rendered by the municipality. Bruce at 1190. Unlike Bloom, the method of calculation in Bruce only distinguished between
residential and commercial properties generally, not each individual property assessed. However, this distinction did not prevent the Court from upholding the fee. In Krupp v. Breckenridge
Sanitation District, 1 P.3d 178 (Colo.App. 1999), the Court was asked to consider the imposition of a plant investment fee ("PIF") by the Breckenridge Sanitation District. The plaintiff
argued that the amount of the PIF assessed to the property must have a "rough proportionality" between the amount of the PIF demanded and the impact of the landowner's proposed development.
(In Krupp, the plaintiff analogized the imposition of a fee to a government taking). The Court rejected the plaintiffs argument. In so doing, the Krupp Court not only distinguished a
fee from a taking but also held that there must only be a rational basis for the fee imposed. In fact, the Court found no requirement that there be an absolute equality of service fees
among those similarly situated. Krupp at 184. The Court held that it would not set aside a legislatively imposed fee unless it was "inherently unsound." Krupp at 184. The PIF was was
determined based on the classification of buildings by nature, use and size, and while the Krupp court found that this calculation might not have been ideal, it was not irrational or
inherently unsound and therefore would not be upset. Krupp at 184. The result of the cases cited above is that the City Council has broad legislative discretion in imposing a service
fee. It is a policy choice for the City Council to determine how to calculate the rate of the fee. The basis for the options chosen should be clearly detailed in the enacting ordinance.
III. What to Avoid when Drafting While the special fee was upheld in Bloom, a portion of the ordinance enacting the fee was overturned. This portion stated in relevant part, " ... if
there are amounts in excess of the amount required to satisfy the purpose of the fund, the City Council may, by ordinance, authorize the transfer of such excess amount to any other fund
of the city." Bloom at 306. The Court ultimately found that this transfer provision rendered only only that portion of the fee the equivalent of a tax. Bloom at 311 . Because the transfer
of money generated by the fee to another city fund would mean the fee-paying property owners were disproportionately bearing the cost of providing revenues to defray the general government
expenses, unrelated to the purpose for which the fee was imposed, the Court found this provisions of the ordinance was invalid. The lesson to be drawn is that the funds raised must be
used only for the services for which the fee is imposed. 4
City of U WheatBL..dge ~OMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor DiTullio and Members: ff ity Council Randy Young, City Manager..-W" Ken Johnstone, Director of
Community Development June 24, 2009 (for the July 6 City Council study session) Building Division Assessment -Final Report and Recommendations BACKGROUND Late in 2008, the City Manager
and Community Development Director, in partnership with staff and the President ofWR2020, initiated an external assessment of the City'S Building Division. The overall intent ofthe assessment
project was to get an outside expert's view of the policies and practices of the division relative to our peer communities in the Denver metro area. Best management practices for most
organizations periodically require this type of assessment. In December 2008, we developed a scope of work and solicited consultant proposals from six consulting firms specializing in
this type of work. Three firms responded and all were interviewed by a review committee composed of staff from WR2020, the City Manager and Community Development Director and an external
Chief Building Official. Colorado Code Consulting (CCC), LLC, Steve Thomas, Principal, was the unanimous choice by the review committee. Mr. Thomas has broad experience as a chief building
official across the Front Range both as city staff and through his consulting firm. Mr. Thomas also represents private sector developer/builder clients on building code matters. Mr.
Thomas serves on several of the national and international building code development committees and provides teaching and training services for building code officials and inspectors
across the nation. We entered a professional services agreement on March 7th, 2009. The assessment project has also been guided by a group of volunteer stakeholders that have served
as a sounding board throughout the process. That committee was appointed by the City Manager and included WR2020 board members, Council Members Stites and Berry, and two local builder/developers.
developers. The committee held three meetings. The fust meeting provided an opportunity to refme the scope of work with CCC and ensure that the right questions were being asked through
the interviews and customer service survey and that the right individuals were being interviewed. At the second meeting, CCC presented the results of the data collection effort (peer
community benchmarking, staff interviews, stakeholder interviews, field observations and customer service survey) and preliminary recommendations. The committee had an opportunity to
provide input on those preliminary recommendations. The last meeting is scheduled for July 1,2009, which is after the distribution of this memo. The committee will be reviewing a draft
of the final report and providing any final comments. We anticipate that they will provide final comments and a consensus recommendation supporting the
Building Division Assessment June 24, 2009 Page 2 final report and the recommendations contained within. Staff and our consultant will report back on any final input from that meeting
at the July 6 study session. The committee is receiving the same copy of the final report as City Council. The Final Report from CCC is attached. Steve Thomas with CCC will be presenting
a summary of the report and the process he completed in developing his assessment. He will present his findings and recommendations to City Council and be available for questions. Attachments:
Building Division Assessment, prepared by Colorado Code Consulting, LLC Ikj 2
Introduction Building Division Assessment City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado Colorado Code Consulting, LLC (CCC) was contracted to conduct an assessment of the City of Wheat Ridge Building
Division in March, 2009. This three month study included a series of interviews, research and discussions with people associated with the operations of the division. The purpose of this
assessment is to provide an all inclusive review of the building division services, policies, practices, procedures, and fees. It focused on the review of the residential & commercial
rehabilitation and reuse projects within the city. This report is intended provide a set of recommendations that can be used to assist the building division in meeting the city's overall
goal of being more business friendly. The city would like to improve their reputation and develop an "open for business" attitude. The assessment revealed that there was a shift in the
overall culture of the building division over the past two years. The staff of the division changed during this time. This is not uncommon when the personnel are changed in a department.
The level of enforcement of the building codes increased over the previous administration. Thi s created a series of complaints and concerns from contractors and building owners in the
city. Those complaints and concerns prompted this assessment. CCC staff interviewed people that were involved with doing business with the Wheat Ridge Building Division. This included
contractors, building owners, the Mayor and City Council members, representatives of Wheat Ridge 2020, other community members and the division staff. The interviews provided important
information to assist in developing this report. The interviews were both positive and negative regarding the operations and enforcement policies of the building division. We also observed
the operations of the division. We reviewed a sample of the plan reviews conducted by the division to gather information on the level of review completed. We also accompanied the inspector
on inspections to observe the community relations of the division. An morning was spent in the building division office to observe the interaction with customers and clients. Anonymous
surveys were sent to 135 recent permit holders. This survey was developed to get a sense of the community's responses to the building division's operations. A total of 37 surveys were
returned which is a 27% return rate. This is a good return on these types of surveys. The surveys were generally positive with a few negative results. CCC staff contacted 10 separate
jurisdictions to gather benchmark data on their operations, policies, staffing and fee schedules. The data obtained has been compiled and compared to the same information for the Wheat
Ridge Building Division. The date revealed that the operation of
Wheat Ridge differed in some areas and was the same in other areas. Many of the recommendations included in this report are based on this benchmark data. Based on this research and interview
process, we have developed a series of recommendations to improve the overall operations of the building division. These recommendations provide additional policies and procedures that
should be considered by the city personnel and ci ty council. It is CCC's position that many of the suggestions are intended to help in creating the "open for business" philosophy. The
recommendations include policies , staffing levels, permit procedures and fee calculation revisions. Interview Process Summary A total of 21 different individuals were interviewed by
Steve Thomas as part of the building divis ion assessment process. Five staff members from the Community Development Division participated in the interviews. Sixteen people from the
Wheat Ridge community were interviewed to get their experiences, comments and suggestions regarding the building division's processes and operations. The community members included the
Mayor, City Council members, the Building Code Advisory Board, representatives of Wheat Ridge 2020 and the Wheat Ridge Business District, contractors and business owners that have work
with the division. A series of si milar questions were asked of each participant. The city staff members were asked different questions than the community participants since they had
different interactions with the division. Both set of questions were designed to get a broad picture of how the division works and services the community. Copies of the questions are
provided at the end of this report. Community Interviews The interview responses were split between positive and negative responses. Five of the interviews had negative
comments about the division, nine were positive, and two were relatively neutral. Copies of the questions asked during the interviews have been included in Appendix A of this report.
The negative comments were generally from the contractors and business owners that had an unpleasant experience with the building division. The positive and neutral interviews were with
people in an administrative position of organizations that deal with the city. The negative comments centered around the level of enforcement that was done on the projects compared to
in the past and in other jurisdictions. The level of enforcement was perceived as being overly restrictive and very "black & white". The respondents did not feel that the building division
was willing to work with the contractor to resolve a problem. Some of the respondents did not feel that the division was responsive to the community's needs and did not share the goal
of making the city more business friendly. They felt the division was not willing to work with people to solve issues. They felt the division just said no and left it up to the owner
or contractor to figure out the problems. There were comments that the building division was not customer
friendly. There was a perception by some that it is easier to just not get a permit for work and take a chance on getting caught. On the other hand, some people felt that the division
was good to work with. A few of the respondents stated that it was about time that someone enforced the code in Wheat Ridge. They felt that the division was professional in dealing with
issues. They also felt that the inspection process was timely. A few of the people interviewed said that the inspectors worked with contractors to work issues out. As part of the interview,
the people being interviewed were asked how they would improve the division. Several recommendations were made. They included the need to hire additional inspectors to speed up the plan
review process and inspections. Many of the comments included revising the fee schedules for permits in the city. Communication was a common thread through the interviews. Some people
felt that if there was better communication, the number of problems would have been reduced. reduced. The need to set times for inspections was also discussed. A few felt that this type
of assessment should be an ongoing follow-up should be done to determine if the recommendations made in this report were successful or not. There were a suggestion that the building
division develop a better relationship with the Wheat Ridge 2020 organization and other community organizations. We wanted to know if the interviewees felt the division staff was knowledgeable
on the code requirements. The majority of the respondents felt the staff was knowledgeable. The majority of the people that responded felt that the staff did not the specifics of the
code. However, there was concern as to whether they were willing to make judgments that may fall in the grey area of the code. The comments about the building division being very black
& white in their enforcement were also mentioned in this portion of the interview. Staff Interviews The division staff was also interviewed to get their thoughts on the division 's operations.
The questions were designed to get a feel of how the division operated from an internal standpoint. The comments were positive in nature. The employees that had been in the city for
some time felt that the division had improved over past divisions. A follow-up interview was conducted with John Schumacher was done at the end of the interview and research phase of
the assessment. A copy of both of the interview questions is included in Appendix A. The staff felt that the division with the current building official and inspectors were much better
than past staff members. They were much tighter and more structured. They felt that the filing system and programs were much better than in the past. There was concern about the amount
of support that staff received from the Mayor and City Council members. There appeared to be a lot of work being taken home to get it done in a reasonable time period. They felt that
the entrance to the building division was unfriendly and didn't work well for working with the public. The staff was also asked for recommendation on how to improve the division. Some
of the staff felt that an addition combination plans examiner/inspector would improve the plan review turnaround time and improve the public perception of the division. The additional
person could also
conduct over-the-counter plan reviews. They felt that a better routing system could be developed for processing permits through multiple divisions in the city. Division Observation As
a part of the staff interview process, we observed the operations of the division. The observations were not as successful as we had wished. During the time that we were in the office,
no customers came in. Therefore, we were not able to get a good understanding of the interaction at the counter. However, our observation of the inspector and plan reviews provided information
regard ing the enforcement of the code and the interaction in the field. The inspector was polite and informative during the inspections. He answered the clients questions appropriately
and accurately. Conclusion A lot of inform ation was gained from the interviews and observations. The responses were honest and sincere. There were people on both sides of the issue.
The answers provided during the interviews have been used to develop the recommendations included in th is report. Anonymous Customer Service Surveys Summary 135 anonymous surveys were
mailed out to the permit holder for projects that had been completed in the past few months. It included eighteen questions on the building permit process and their experience with the
building division. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A. A total of 37 surveys, or 27%, were returned to CCC. The questions included answers that were given scores to determine
the overall opinion of the division. A score of 5 was given to and answer of Strongly Agree and a score of 1 to Strongly Disagree with a neutral answer in the middle. The surveys revealed
a different overall evaluation of the building division than the interviews. Of the 37 surveys returned, 35 of the surveys were positive. Overall, the surveys rated the division above
average. A summary of the survey results is included in Appendix B of this report. As a part of the survey, comments were encouraged. As is common in these types of surveys, people who
are sati sfied with the service they receive do not add written comments. Therefore, the majority of the additional comments were on the negative side of the issue. However, there were
a few positive comments. Specific comments included the fact that the staff was friendly, courteous and easy to work with. They felt that the people they dealt with were excellent and
had good attitudes. One respondent stated that it the division was one, if not the best building division they had worked with in 30 years. They stated that they couldn't wait to work
in Wheat Ridge again. On the other side of the issue, the negative comments were similar to those received during the individual interview process. One respondent sat they do not recommend
people go through the city to renovate. There were a few concern s about the amount of time it takes to get a building permit. A comment stated that an inspector had caused extra work
for the framing and roofing
contractor. There was concerned voiced that the city's website was missing information and was not consistent with the staff's responses and requirements. Building Division Benchmark
Data Summary The City of Wheat Ridge Building Division was compared to ten different jurisdictions in the area of policies, procedures, fees and code adoption. A detailed comparison
is provided in Appendix C of this report. This section wi ll summarize the findings in the four different areas noted above. The jurisdictions used in the study are Arvada , Aurora,
Commerce City, Englewood, Golden, Lakewood, Littleton, Parker, Thornton and Westminster. The jurisdictions were selected based on their location relative to Wheat Ridge; the similar
population and/or demographics; and jurisdictions that had service oriented attitudes. Code Adoption All of the jurisdictions surveyed have adopted the 2006 series of International construction
codes, (I-Codes) with the exception of Commerce City and Wheat Ridge. The building division has developed a proposed ordinance to adopt the 2006 I-codes but is waiting to present the
ordinance until after this report has been completed. Al l of the jurisdictions amended the code in a minor way. Most of the revisions were in the area of the administrative provisions
of the code. Three different methods of review are done on proposed adoption . Some building departments submit the ordinance directly to the ci ty council for adoption. Four of the
jurisdictions including Wheat Ridge present the ordinance to the Board of Appeals for their review and recommendation to the city council. Existing buildings are regulated by Chapter
34 of the International Building Code (IBC) in 7 of the jurisdictions including Wheat Ridge. Three jurisdictions have adopted the International Existing Building Code in addition to
the IBC. None of the jurisdictions with the exception of Wheat Ridge adopt Appendix J of the International Residential Code (IRC). This chapter has a requirement that if over 50% of
a dwelling unit is altered, it is a reconstruction. This has been interpreted to mean that the building must be brought into conformance with the current code provisions. Building Permit
Policies All of the jurisdictions including Wheat Ridge issue building permits "over-the-counter" for small projects like water heaters, roofs and decks. The ci ties of Thornton and
Commerce City have created a program called "Fast Friday Permits". This program provides homeowners the chance to come in on Fridays and get permits for their weekend projects. Plans
examiners are available to meet with them and go over their projects and then issue the permits right then and there. We tried to look at the overall time that it takes to get a building
permit from a jurisdiction. The answers that we were provided was the "Quoted turn-around times" for permits. This is what the jurisdictions tell people when they ask. The actual time
it takes is commonly less than the quoted time. However, jurisdictions do not typically track that information. The quoted time for
Wheat Ridge was a little longer than most of the other jurisdictions. We also looked at the number of plans required to be submitted. The numbers ranged between 1 and 7 sets depending
on the jurisdiction. Wheat Ridge fell in the middle with requiring 3 sets of drawings for a permit. All of the jurisdictions including Wheat Ridge provide a concurrent review of the
plans by different divisions within the city. One of the issues that was relayed to us prior to doing this assessment was that people stated that Wheat Ridge required permits for work
that other city's did not. So we queried the jurisdictions on the type of work that they required permits on. All of the jurisdictions require a building permit for siding, roofing,
furnace replacements and water heater replacements. The only work that received mixed answers was window replacements. Eight of the jurisdictions, including Wheat Ridge, required permits
when replacing any type of window replacement. Westminster only required a permit if the work included a change in the size of the window or it was located in an area that required an
emergency escape and rescue opening. The City of Lakewood does not require a building permit for window replacements. All of the jurisdictions have adopted Section 105.2 of the I-Codes
regarding exempt work. This section lists work that is not required to have a building permit. This includes minor work including painting, wall papering, cabinets, etc. It also exempts
permits for small sheds, and fences less than 6 feet in height. Many of the jurisdictions amend this section and require permits for this minor work. Most of them require the permits
for planning and zoning reasons and do not apply the building code requirements. Wheat Ridge is such a jurisdiction. Contractor Licensing Policies All of the jurisdictions, with the
exception of the Town of Parker, required contractors to have a contractor's license. The cities of Golden and Westminster cal l their licensing program a registration program. All of
the jurisdictions have have different levels of classifications of licenses. For the purpose of this assessment, we have classified them as Class A, B, C and D to provide a side by side
comparison. Class A contractors are general contractors that are permitted to construct any size building. Class B contractors are general contractors permitted to build structures up
to 3 or 4 stories depending on the jurisdiction. Class C contractors are general homebuilding contractors. Class D is reserved for subcontractors. Many of the jurisdictions have multiple
subcategories in this classification . For example the city of Aurora has fourteen different subcategories. Wheat Ridge has one of the lowest set of fees for contractor's licenses. Only
the city of Thornton, Westminster and Golden have lower fees. Golden only charges $25 for their registration. The highest is the city of Aurora. Half of the jurisdictions require contractors
to take a test to obtain a contractor's license. The city's of Aurora, Englewood and Littleton use an in-house test. Thornton and Wheat Ridge accept a test conducted by the International
Code Council (ICC). ICC is the organization that promulgates the I-Codes that have been adopted. They provide a standardized test that jurisdictions can use for testing contractors.
Arvada Thornton, Englewood and Wheat Ridge also
have reciprocity policies. They agree to accept contractor's licenses from other jurisdictions in lieu of taking a test in their ju ri sdiction for a license. Only the cities of Littleton,
Commerce City and Wheat Ridge require contractors to ca rry liabil ity insurance. Littleton also requi res worker's compensation insurance. Inspection Policies This portion of the assessment
was conducted to determ ine the workload of the inspectors in Wheat Ridge. The division has a position approved in the 2009 budget for an additional person to do plan reviews and inspections.
We tried to compare the number of inspections done to the va luation of work perm itted in the different jurisdictions. These numbers were inconclusive in determining the workload. It
provided a better idea of the type of work that was done in the jurisd iction. The higher the number of inspections permit indicates that the jurisdiction is doing larger jobs that require
more inspections. The lower inspections per permit indicate that the j urisdiction is doing smaller projects that may only require one or two inspections. A comparison of the number
of inspections per inspector was also conducted. This provided the information that was needed for this assessment. The average number of inspections that an inspector in an urban area
should do is 10 per day. The study showed that the inspectors in Wheat Ridge are doing 13.5 inspections per day. Many of the jurisdictions fell within that acceptable range. The city
of Thornton averaged 23-24 inspections per day. This is apparently due to the large amount of tract home building that is occurring in that jurisdiction. Inspectors are able to park
at one end of a street and walk from home to home to conduct inspections. This eliminates the traveltime that other inspectors have. All of the jurisdictions conducted inspections with
in 1 business day of the inspection request. They also received the inspection request via a voice mail system. Wheat Ridge, Westmi nster, Aurora and Parker accept faxed requests. Wheat
Ridge and Arvada also accept inspection requests via email. All of the jurisdictions have a policy regarding a charge for reinspections. The fee is left up to the inspector's judgment.
It typica lly is charged after an inspector has to return to a job a third or fourth time for the same inspection. This was consistent among all of the jurisdictions. Fee Structure To
provide a fair compari son of the permit fees charged by the city, CCC polled the 10 jurisdictions on the fees collected for seven different types of projects. We requested their va
luation figures to calculate the va lue of the permit as well as their fee schedules for the building permit fee, plan review fee and use tax. The seven projects were a new 1,500 square
foot single-family dwelling; a new 2,000 square foot retail project; a 100,000 square foot hospital; a 500 square foot basement fin ish; a 250 square foot deck; a replacement of a furnace;
and a replacement of a water heater. The valuations for each of these projects were ca lcu lated using the valuations provided by the jurisdictions. If a valuation was not provided,
the valuation calculation used by the City of Wheat Ridge was used. The fees were then ca lculated using the permit fee and use tax calculations for
each jurisdiction. The jurisdictions were then ranked according to the total of the three fees charged for all of the projects combined. This provides an equal comparison of the total
fees if a contractor would obtain permits for all seven projects and the total fees they would pay. Rankings were also provided for each of the permit, plan review and use tax fees individually.
A spread sheet showing the comparison is included in Appendix C of th is report. As far as the total fees collected, Wheat Ridge ranked seventh out of eleven ju risdictions. However,
when the fees for building permits and plan reviews are compared, they are the highest in building permit fees and second highest for plan review fees. The reason fo r the discrepancy
is the use tax fees ranked ninth overall. This difference brings the city back into the midd le when adding all of the fees together. An average of the fees and the mean value of the
fees collected was also calculated to show where the ci ty fell in relation to those va lues. lues. There have been several compla ints regarding the fees charged for small projects
in the city. In reviewing the fees charged for the basement; deck; furnace; and water heater, the fees were the highest of the eleven jurisd ictions that were compared. Higher fees tend
to discourage homeowners from getting building permits for work on their own homes. If building permits are not obtained, there is a high possibility that the work wi ll not be constructed
in accordance with the applicable construction codes. This can create an unsafe condition in these homes. This assessment did not evaluate th e other fees charged by the City of Wheat
Ridge by other departments. This includes, flood plain fees; public works fees; fire department fees; and fees assessed by other departments. In some cases, these fees can also have
a negative effect on how people choose whether to get a building permit or not. Recommendations Fees This portion of the report may the largest impact on the city than any other. Fees
generated generated by building permits are included in the overall general fund budget for the city. If fees are reduced, as recommended in this report, it may have significant impact
on the budget. This issue should be considered ca refully by the staff and city council prior to adoption. A Significant amount of the permits issued are for small homeowner permits.
This recommendation discusses the calculation to determine the valuation of a project if not provided by the applicant; Permit Fee revisions; and plan review fees. Building Permit Valuation
• The current va luation table was developed using the table available from the International Code Council (ICC). We recommend that the city use the figures in the most current ICC valuation
table without any modifiers. This table is available to anyone onl ine and divides the va lues by occupancy classification and type of construction. It is the same valuation table used
by most of the jurisdictions used in the benchmark data review. This should be included in the code adoption ordinance.
• Fees should be based on the calculated valuation or the valuation provided by the applicant whichever is higher. This should be codified in the code adopting ordinance. • Valuations
for miscellaneous work seem reasonable and should be maintained. Building Permit Fees • It is recommended that the building permit fees be revised to the same table used by Commerce
City, Englewood, Littleton, and Golden. This is the median fee schedule found in the study and is slightly lower than the average fees. • Fees for small projects typically done by homeowners
should be reduced to encourage people to get a permit. The following fees are recommended. o Decks $40.00 total including permit and plan review o Fences $40.00 o Furnaces/boiler replacement
$40.00 o Water heater replacement $40.00 o Lawn sprinklers $40.00 a Maintain current fees for specific projects. Plan Review Fees • Plan review fees should stay the same with the exception
of permits for the same work or same model of home. In this case the initial review fee should be 65% of the permit fee and any subsequent review is 25% of the permit fee. • Plan review
fees should only be charged when plans are submitted and reviewed. If permits are extended, no plan review fee should be charged if plans are not reviewed. • Plan review fees should
not be charged for the small projects listed above. Use Tax Fees • Use tax fees should not be changed. This is more difficu lt to change than permit fees. Therefore, a change is not
recommended. • Use tax fees should not be charged to projects when the permit is extended or renewed. This could be considered double taxation. Re-I nspection Fees • Re-inspection fees
are slightly over the average of those jurisdictions polled. The average fee was $57.95. It is recommended that the current fee be maintained.
Permitting Practices The policies rega rding the issuance of permits in Wheat Ridge will be discussed in this section. Building permits are used to regulate construction within the city.
They ensure that the work that is done is not completed in an unsafe manner. Perm its Reguired • The language in the proposed adoption of the I-Codes lists 13 different cases where permits
are not required. This list should be maintained. • Many of the comments we heard as part of the interview process was the requirement that required the existing building to be brought
up to current code requirements. The reason for this requi rement is that Appendix J was adopted as part of the adoption of the 2003 International Residentia l Code (IRC). It is recommended
that Appendix J of the 2006 IRC not be adopted. This appendix has a provision that requires applicants to bring the rest of a single-family dwelling up to current code if more than 50%
of the building area is being renovated among other restrictive requirements. This appendix is too restrictive to meet the city's policy of being "open for business". It is not adopted
by any other jurisdiction in the metro area based on our research and understanding. If the adoption of the 2006 codes are delayed, a separate ordinance may be beneficial to delete the
appendix chapter from the current code. Over the Counter Permits • The current procedure for over the counter permits should be mai ntained. The current types of work that a permit can
be obtained included water heaters, roofs and decks. • Consider expanding the type of permits that are issued over the counter. Basement finishes are an example that could be issued
over the counter if a new plans examiner is hired. • Consider the "Fast Friday Permits" that Commerce City and Thornton have. This would require the plans examiner to set aside Fridays
to do reviews of projects with homeowners at the counter for "weekend projects". Turn Around Times • The current turnaround time for permits is on the high side of those ju risdictions
polled. It is recommended that these times be reduced to the following: o Commercial New/Major Work -Maximum 4 weeks o Commercial Tenant Finish -Maximum 2 weeks o Commercia l Minor Work
-Maximum 1 week o Residential New/Major Work -Maximum 3 weeks o Residentia l Minor Work -1 week o Minor Permits -3 business days • To meet these turnaround times, an additional plans
examiner will be needed. This will provide the service level that is needed to meet the demand of work that is currently being done in the city.
Routing Practices • A one-stop process should be created for all permits. All plans should come through the building division to be distributed to the appropriate divisions and fire
districts for review. Concurrent review should be done and all comments rerouted to the building division prior to returning the plans andlor permit to the applicant. • The fire districts
should be included in the routing of plans or a policy that no permit is issued without fire districts approval of the plans. A method to ensure that the fire district fees are collected
should be developed. Plan Review Procedure • Change "Approved" stamp on drawings to "Reviewed for Compliance" as noted in the International Building Code. • It is recommended that a
plan review report be developed for medium size projects in addition to the large projects now provided with a report. A plan review report provides the designer with a comprehensive
list of corrections and creates a paper trail for issues that may occur in the future. • Plan review review comments should include specific code reference to support the comment. Inspection
Practices Inspections are the process that is used to ensure that a project is being constructed in accordance with the applicable codes and the construction documents. It is one of
the few conditions that city government officials have direct interaction with the public. Therefore, it is sometimes the first impression that the public has of the city. Therefore,
it is important that the inspection practices in a jurisdiction be handled like a customer service. Proper communication and service is important to make certain that the public has
a positive attitude toward the local government official. Scheduling • Provide 1-2 hour inspection window for all clients , including both homeowners and contractors. Allow permit applicants
to request am or pm and have inspector call in morning with time. Consider Aurora policy where inspector calls 30 minutes before inspection. If inspector is going to be late, then they
should call and let the permit holder know they are running late and give a revised time that they expect to be there. • It is recommended that the division release the cell phone numbers
for inspectors to clients. This will allow people to contact them with questions and scheduling. This provides a better level of customer service to the public.
Re-Inspection Process • The current policy of the first re-inspection is free should be maintained. • The current policy regarding re-inspection fees as determined by the inspector should
be maintained. • Re-inspection fees should not be waived unless both the bui lding official and the inspector agree. • Consultation inspections should be maintained. Contractor Licensing
Contractor licenses are a method of consumer protection for owners who hire building contractors. Licensing is also a revenue source for the city. Testing • The current policy regarding
testing should be maintained. Requiring ICC testing and reciprocity with other jurisdictions is reasonable and saves the division and contractors time. Licensing Requirements • The current
liability insurance requirements are adequate and should be maintained. • Recommend that the Homeowner license classification be elim inated. Suggest language be added to ordinance regarding
homeowner's work on their property as follows: o Allow a homeowner to perform work on their residence except if such residence is intended for sale or resale; or is rental property that
is occupied or is to be occupied by tenants for lodging, either transient or permanent. • Recommend that commercial property owners be al lowed to do minor work on their building without
a licensed contractor. Limit the value of the work to $1,000 in any 6 month period. Electrical, plumbing and gas piping work must be done by a licensed contractor. This will allow the
local business owners the opportunity to do minor work in their
business without having to hire a licensed contractor. This will save them money for such projects. • Clarify the term "wages" in the licensing ordinance. Is a person working for someone
as a contract employee (1099) considered to be receiving wages under the ordinance? Trades • Maintain the license classifications as currently contained in the ordinance. Do not revise
the language as proposed to the Class IV category. This ca tegory should include any subcontractor that may be used during a project, whether the work is structu ra l or not. Construction
Codes The adoption of construction codes provides the legal authority to require build ing permits and do inspections. It sets the standards for construction of buildings in a safe manner.
Codes are adopted in a local ordinance approved by the city council. Adoption • Recommend that the 2006 I-Codes be adopted as proposed. Although the 2009 codes are available, the political
atmosphere in Wheat Ridge is not conducive to the discussion of fire sprinklers in townhouses and one-and two-family dwellings. • Include the users of the code to review the adopting
ordinance and amendments. Stakeholders that can be included are representatives of community groups like Wheat Ridge 2020 and the Wheat Ridge Business District; local contractors; and
local architects. This will provide a group of local people to assist in reviewing the codes. • Language revisions to the proposed ordinance will be discussed with the building division
staff. CCC will work with the building official to draft the ordinance to agree with this report's recommendations. • Proposed language in the IRC not to adopt Appendix J is highly recommended.
This appendix is too restrictive for a jurisdiction like Wheat Ridge. • Revise the language regarding the expiration of permits. The current 6 month limitation is too short and most
permits must be extended. Recommend that permits expire either 1 or 2 years after the issuance. This should cover most permits and not require constant extensions. Divis ion Staffing
Providing top level service to the public requires qualified staff. It also requires an adequate number of staff to respond to the needs of the public and construction community. Staffing
Levels • The building offi cia l's recommendation that a combination plans examiner -inspector be hired should be done. This will improve the turnaround times for perm its and eliminate
the need to use contract inspection services. Bringing the inspections in-house will improve the consistency and service levels of the division. • With the addition of the combination
plans examiner -inspector, the staffing level should be adequate for the amount of work being done in Wheat Ridge.
Staff Education • Provide funds in the budget for staff continuing education. • Staff should maintain their ICC certifications. • The building official should participate in the Colorado
Chapter ICC meetings and education sessions. This will provide networking opportunities and contacts to assist in addressing issues as they come up. General Recommendations Division
Presentation • Entrance to building division is very unfriendly. The front counter area is not conducive to customer service. It should be arranged so that people entering the area know
where the division is. This is the first place most homeowners come when they visit a city hall. Therefore, it should be inviting and present the division in a professional manner. •
There should be a counter large enough to roll a set of drawings out on. This will provide a better level of customer service for those clients bringing in construction documents for
review. • The handout rack cu rrently located outside of the office near the stairway should be located within the division offices. The permit technician should be able to just reach
over and give the customer a copy of what they need, not just direct them to the rack. This will provide a higher level of personal service to the public. Customer Service • The attitude
of the division should be more customer service oriented. They should present themselves as being there to assist the permit applicant with getting their project completed in a safe
manner. They should provide assistance to the permit holder in dealing with issues that come up during a project. • The staff should offer alternatives to contractors and homeowners
to comply with the applicable codes without designing the project for them. If there are different ways to resolve an issue and stay within the intent of the applicable codes, those
options should be explored with the permit holder to efficien tly resolve a problem. • Distribute a customer service survey with every permit that is issued to be returned at the end
of the project. Review surveys for new ideas to provide good customer service. Community Relations • Create a liaison relationship with community groups (Wheat Ridge 2020, Wheat Ridge
Business District, etc.)
• Develop homeowner classes for decks, basement finishes and general permit procedures. Publicize the classes in the local newspaper and provide the classes at a reasonable time and
at no cost to the homeowner.
Wheat Ridge Community Interview Name _______________ _ Date __________ _ Title _______________ _ Business ________________ _ 1. Explain how you work with the Wheat Ridge Building Division.
2. How long have you worked with the Division? 3. When the last time you dealt with the division and what was was your experience? 4. Overall, how do you feel the building division operates?
5. What do you like or dislike about working with the Building Division? 6. Do you feel that that the division is knowledgeable about the building codes? 7. Do you feel that the division
is fair and reasonable in its enforcement of the codes? 8. If you were in charge of the division, what changes would you make? 9. Have you worked with the WheatRidge2020 program? If
yes, how so? 10.ls there anything I haven't asked that you think would assist me in doing my evaluation?
Wheat Ridge Staff Interview Staff Member ___________ _ Title _______________ _ Date __________ _ 1. Explain what your responsibilities at the city are. 2. Tell me about your experience,
certifications, knowledge, etc. 3. Overall, how do you feel the building division operates? 4. What do you like about working for Wheat Ridge? 5. Do you feel that you receive the support
from the administration and city council? 6. Do you feel that you are given enough time to do complete your assignments? 7. If you were in charge of the division, what changes would
you make? 8. Describe how you have worked with the WheatRidge2020 program 9. Have you had any bad experiences with WR2020? 10.ls there anything I haven't asked that you think would assist
me in doing my evaluation?
Follow-up Questions for John Schumacher 1. Have you made any policy or procedure changes since our assessment was started? 2. When Jason asked you who reviews the code amendments, you
sa id the Building Code Advisory Board. However, when I met with the board, they said they had never seen any amendments. Can you clarify your process? 3. Explain the permit process
to me again. Do you issue a general permit for all work or separate permits for each trade? What if the general contractor doesn't have a subcontractor yet? 4. How often are permits
extended? Do you know why the city amended the code to limit the time period? How do you notify people that their permits are going to expire? What fees are charged when the permit is
extended or when it expires 5. How were the valuation figures determined? Why is the ICC valuation table used? 6. Explain the Homeowner License. When do you require it? How is it managed?
Why are the fees on the website different than what is handed out? The website says $75.00 and the form you gave me says $0. 7. Are you still taking plans home to do reviews? 8. What
kind of relationship do you have with the fire department? 9. Describe your policy regarding stop work orders (other than you are the only one to issue them per policy). 10.Explain the
50% rule regarding bringing a building up to cu rrent code if work exceeds 50% of building area. How is it applied? Where is the supporting ordinance or code section?
11.ls it true that you are the only one that does final inspections? If so, why not allow Kirk to do them? 12. Do you feel that you are tougher on WR 2020 projects than others? If so,
why? 13. Are the adhesive labels used on the plan reviews a standard comments or they job specific. 14. Why does the building department create the occupant load signs? Specific Project
Questions Big Sky Espresso 1. Did you investigate the possibility of using natural ventilation in lieu of the mechanical ventilation? 976 s.f. x 0.04 = 39 s.f. 2 doors = 40 s.f. 2. Why
was a fire alarm system required? 3. Why were structural calculations required for the deck? 4. How did you classify the occupancy classification of A-2 if occupant load of indoor area
was 47? Outdoor Occ. Load = 18. 5. Regardless of the code requirement, do you think that separate toilet facilities were necessary in that store? 4753 Dover (Fix & Flip) 6. Explain following
plan review comments: a. Existing openings not complying with R309.1 are prohibited. Existing windows between garage and house must be removed, framed and drywalled". b. "Insulations
required to be R-19 in walls & floors and R-38 in ceiling or a ResCheck must be provided".
c. "Provided H2.5 clips on existing rafters". 7. Where did the Y. Inch spacing limitation for spaced sheathing come from? Amici's 4300 Wadsworth B. Why was building required to be sprinklered
and then divided into fire areas when occupant load was only 211? What code section supported this requirement? 9. Why were 36" aisles required between tables? 10. Why was the manufacturer's
inspection and warranty required on the roof system? Hyland Duplexes 6350 & 60 W 30th 11. There was no plan review report in the file, just red lines on the drawings. Is that typical
for new residential projects? 12. A foundation letter was required, but not found in the file. Do you remember if you ever received it? 13. FRTW sheathing was required on both sides
of the separation wall between the units. Why was this required? 14. The y," gyp. bd. specified on the structural drawings was changed to 5/B". Do you remember why?
Colorado Code Consulting, L.L.C. 46105 Ulster Street. Suite 150 Denver, CO 80237 City of Wheat Ridge Building Division Customer Service Survey The City of Wheat Ridge has contracted
with Colorado Code Consulting, LLC to conduct an assessment of the Building Division. As a part of our assessment, we are asking you to fill out this survey to assist us in our evaluation.
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the quality of services provided by the Building Division. Thank you for taking the time to help us improve our service. Your input will be
valuable in improving the service provided by the city. 1. As it relates to your dealings with the Building Division, are you: Check all that apply [ I Property Owner [ J Contractor
[ J Architect/Engineer [ J Developer [J Other-Explain ______ ____________________ _ 2. What kind of project are you working with the Division: [J Single-Family{ J Multi-Family [J Commercial/Industria
l [J Other-Explain __________________________ _ 3. What level of work was done on the project: { J New [J Addition {J Major Remodel [J Minor Remodel 4. The primary purpose of your business
with the City of Wheat Ridge Building Division was: Check all that apply [ J Permitting [ J Plan Review [J Meeting [ J Licensing [ J Inspections [J Code Violation 5. My needs were addressed
in a timely manner: [ J Strongly agree [J Agree [ J Neutral [ J Disagree [ J Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? ____________________________ _ 6. My questions were answered in a clear
and concise manner: [ J Strongly agree [ J Agree [ J Neutral [ J Disagree [ J Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? ____________________________ _ 7. The staff was courteous, helpful,
knowledgeable and has a professional attitude: [ J Strongly agree [ J Agree [ J Neutral [ J Disagree [ J Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? ____________________________ _ 8. I received
consistent information, suggestions and advice from one staff member to another:
( ) Strongly agree ( ) Agree (J Neutral ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why' ____________________________ _ 9. The inspection staff provided me with options/alternatives/referrals
that addressed my concerns: ( ) Strongly agree ( ) Agree ( ) Neutral ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? ____________________________ _ 10. It was simple and easy to
schedule inspections: ( ) Strongly agree ( ) Agree ( ) Neutral ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? _____ _______________________ _ 11. Was the inspection performed within
one business day of your request? ( ) Yes [J No Ifno,why? ______________________________ _ 12. If you requested a time for your inspection, was it performed during the time that you
requested? [J Yes [1 No Ifno,why? ________________________________ _ 13. The building inspector or code enforcement officer was professional [ 1 Strongly agree [ ) Agree [ ) Neutral
[ ) Disagree [ 1 Strongly Disagree If Disagree, why? ____________________________ _ 14. Name of staff member(s) who assisted you: ____________________ _ 15. Rate the turnaround time
for your plan/permit application: [ ) Excellent (J Good (I Average [ ) Poor ( I Very poor Ifpoor,why? _____________________________ ___ 16. Rate the content and usefulness of the plan
review provided: [ I Excellent (J Good (I Average [ 1 Poor [1 Very poor Ifpoor,why? _____________________________ ___ 17. Rate the overall experience with the building divi sion staff:
[ I Excellent [ I Good ( ) Average [ ) Poor [ ) Very poor Ifpoor,why? _____________________________ ___ 18. If you accessed the department's website, Rate the content and ease of use
of the site: ( 1 Excellent [ I Good [ ) Average [1 Poor (J Very poor Ifpoor,why? _____________________________ ___ Suggestions and Comments: Thank you for taking the time to complete
this evaluation. Please return the survey in the enclosed selfaddressed stamped envelope.
Appendix B City of Wheat Ridge Building Division Assessment Customer Service Survey Results Question l. As it re lates to your dealings with the Building Division, are you: (P = Property
Owner, C = Contractor, A = Architect/Engineer, D = Developer) 2. What kind of project are you working with the Division: (SF = Single Family, MF = Multi -Family, C = Commercial, 0 =
Other 5. My needs were addressed in a timely manner: (5-1) 6. My questions were answered in a clear and concise manner: (S-l) 7. The staff was courteous, helpful, knowledgeable and has
a professional attitude: (5-1) 8. I received consistent information, suggestions and advice from one staff member to another: (5-1) 9. The inspection staff provided me with options/alternatives/refer
rals that addressed my concerns: (5-1) 10. It was simple and easy to schedule inspections: (5-1) 11. Was the inspection performed within one business day of your request? % Yes 12. If
you requested a time for your inspection, was it performed during the time that you requested? % Yes 13. The bui lding inspector or code enforcement officer was professional: (5-1) 14.
Name of staff member(s) who assisted you: JS = John Schumacker, K = Kirk, M = Melissa, 15. Rate the turnaround time for your plan/permit application: (5-1) 16. Rate the content and usefulness
of the plan review provided:(5-1) 17. Rate the overall experience with the building division staff: (5-1) 18. If you accessed the department's website, Rate the content and ease of use
of the site: (5-1) Average Overall Ratings: 5 the best, 1 the worst * All staff members were mentioned in the surveys. Property Owner Contractor Total 17 20 37 5-SF, 7-C, 1-ll-SF,10-12-SF,
3-C 0 C,1-0 4.13 3.75 3.94 4.06 3.81 3.94 4.00 4.06 4.03 3.75 3.81 3.78 3.79 3.88 3.83 4.06 4.13 4.09 94% 100% 97% 93% 79% 86% 4.13 4.13 4.13 * * * 4.13 3.33 3.73 3.71 3.75 3.73 4.13
3.94 4.03 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.99 3.86 3.92
Appendix C City of Wheat Ridge Building Division Assessment Benchmark Data Summary 10 Jurisdictions plus Wheat Ridge Compared, • Golden -Pop, 18,000 • Arvada -Pop. 107,000 • Lakewood
-Pop. 144,000 • Westminster -Pop. 108,000 • Aurora -Pop. 316,000 • Thornton -Pop. 113,000 • Englewood -Pop. 33,000 • Parker -Pop. 49,000 • Littleton -Pop. 41 ,000 • Commerce City -Pop.
40,000 • Wheat Ridge -Pop. 32,000 Codes Adopted All jurisdictions surveyed have adopted the 2006 I-Codes with the exception of Commerce City and Wheat Ridge which are using the 2003
I-Codes. Amendments All jurisdictions surveyed amend the codes in some way. Most of the amendments are in the Administrative portions of the code. Who reviews the amendments prior to
adoption by council? Chief Building Official -Golden, Westminster, Aurora , Englewood , Commerce City Chief Building Official and Staff -Arvada, Parker, Chief Building Official and Board
of Appeals -Lakewood , Thornton, Littleton, Wheat Ridge
How do you enforce the code on existing buildings? International Build ing Code Ch. 34 -(10) Golden, Arvada, Lakewood, Westminster, Aurora, Englewood , Parker, Littleton, Commerce City,
Wheat Ridge International Existing Building Code -(3) Arvada , Westminster, Thornton International Property Maintenance Code -(1) Wheat Ridge Is there a percentage of value or building
area that triggers a requirement to bring the existing building up to current code requirements? No -(10) Golden , Arvada, Lakewood, Westminster, Aurora , Thornton, Eng lewood , Parker,
Littleton, Commerce City Yes -(1) Wheat Ridge (when in excess of 50% of square footage) Do you provide over the counter permits? All respondents said yes for water heaters, roofs & decks
Thornton and Commerce City have created a "Fast Friday Permits" where homeowners can get permits for their weekend projects. ---~--. _. ' , _. -_. , ~ .... --. . .... -.. -.. e Jurisdiction
Maior Work Minor Work # Drawinqs Golden 3-4 weeks 1-2 weeks 3 Arvada 4-6 weeks Residential 4 weeks 3 Lakewood 4 weeks 2-4 weeks 2 Westminster 4-6 weeks 3-6 weeks 3 stamped + 4 unstamped
Aurora 3-4 weeks 1-2 weeks 1 Thornton 3-4 weeks 1-1 Yz weeks 6 Eng lewood 2 weeks 1 week 2 Parker 3 weeks 2 days 3 Littleton 3 weeks 3 weeks 4 Commerce City 4 weeks 4 days 2 originals
+ 2 copies Wheat Ridge 4-6 weeks 2-4 weeks 3 a. Actual turn-around times are usually less than quoted times. The actual times were not available.
Concurrent Review All respondents do concurrent reviews Amendments to Section 105.2 the type of work that does not require a building permit such as fences , sheds, retaining walls ,
painting, papering, etc. Golden -No changes Arvada -Minor changes Lakewood -Minor changes Westminster -Minor changes Aurora -No changes Thornton -Require permits for fences over 30"
Englewood -fences, walls and driveways required to have permits Parker -Minor changes Littleton -N/A Commerce City -N/A Wheat Ridge -Require permits for sheds and fences Permits Required:
Siding -all yes Window rep lacement Yes -Golden, Arvada , Thornton, Englewood , Parker, Littleton, Commerce City, Wheat Ridge Yes, if changing size or an egress opening -Westminster,
Aurora No -Lakewood Roof replacement -all yes Furnace/Water heater rep lacement -all yes Contractor license required? All yes except Parker (Golden and Westminster call it registration)
License Classifications Classification Jurisdiction A B C 0 Mech. Elect. Plumb. Other Golden X, Arvada X X X X X X X Lakewood X X X X X X X Xb Westminster X X X X Aurora X X X Xc Thornton
X X X X Englewood X X X X X X X Littleton X X X X X X X Commerce City X X X X X X X X d Wheat Ridge X X X X X X X a. Only register contractors b. Special Categories c. Classification
0-1 through 0-14 d. roofing L--i-c_e .n. s__i n.. q-F. ---Classification Jurisdiction A B C 0 Mech. I Elect. I Plumb. Other Golden $25 Arvada $200 $150 $75 $75 I $75 $0 I $75 $75 Lakewood
$125 $125 $0 $125 $65 Westminster $110 Aurora $325 $216 $162 $109 Thornton $150 $100 $75 $50 Enqlewood $200 $125 $75 $50 $50 $50 $50 Littleton $180 $130 $105 $80 $50 $0 $50 Commerce
City $165 $110 $80 $80 $75 $0 $0 $75 Wheat Ridge $150 $125 $100 $75 $100 $0 $100
Testing required for Contractor License? No -Golden, Parker, Lakewood, Westminster, Commerce City Yes, in -house -Aurora , Eng lewood, Littleton Yes, Reciprocal with other jurisdictions
-Arvada , Thornton, Englewood , Wheat Ridge Yes, ICC -Thornton, Wheat Ridge Homeowner test required? All respondents no except Lakewood for electrical service change Contractor Insurance
required? Only Littleton, Commerce City and Wheat Ridge require insurance coverage as fo llows: • Littleton -$500,000 Liabi lity Class A & S, $300,000 Li ability all others + Workers
Compensation Ins. • Commerce City -$300,000 Li ability all classes • Wheat Ridge $300,000 per occurrence, $600,000 aggregate Inspection Review v"_ ._-_._ --&-1. -. ---_._--s--., . .
. . _-2007 2008 Permits Inspections Permits Total Valuation issued Inspections per permit Total Valuation Issued Inspections Golden $ 41,061,000 742 5045 7 $ 42 ,090,000 769 5382 Arvada
$ 106,093,972 4513 26225 6 $ 110,325,628 5852 23477 Lakewood $ 134,492,194 8206 22827 3 $ 209,304,260 8319 22462 Westminster $ 194,625,235 3986 24798 6 S 150,629,844 4244 23352 Aurora
$ 992 ,299,194 9538 73387 8 S 451 ,955,812 9931 74679 Thornton S 171,853,991 3519 36004 10 S 106,934,917 3289 34671 Enqlewood S 86,125,361 2157 4627 2 $ 31 ,659,278 2065 5788 Parker
S 149,122,041 1903 19884 10 $ 946,766 ,659 1648 16774 Littleton S 61,800,447 2132 7634 4 $ 55,831 ,192 2042 7127 Inspect ions per permit 7 4 3 6 8 11 3 10 3
2007 2008 Permits Inspections Permits Inspections Total Valuation issued Inspections Jlerpermit Total Valuation Issued Inspections per permit Commerce City $ 123,055,856 2856 19919 7
$ 129,165,776 1604 14208 9 Wheat Ridge S 60,406,447 1372 3923 3 $ 123,086,879 1469 5068 3 . .. ----t_i. o-n_. S--.... .. -_. StaffinCl 2007 Ins pections 2008 Inspections Plans Permit
Per year per Per day per Per year per Per day per Jurisdiction Total Examiners Inspectors Techs. inspector inspector inspector inspector Golden 3 1 2 1 2523 10.1 2691 10.8 Arvada 14
2 7 2 3746 15.0 3354 13.4 Lakewood 15 3 9 3 2536 10.1 2496 10.0 Westminster 18 4 9 1 2755 11 .0 2595 10.4 Aurora 45 12 22 4 3336 13.3 3395 13.6 Thornton 14 4 6 3 6001 24.0 5779 23.1
Englewood 7 1 3 2 1542 6.2 1929 7.7 Parker 10 2 5 2 3977 15.9 3355 13.4 Littleton 9 1 3 2 2545 10.2 2376 9.5 Commerce City 11 2 4 3 4980 19.9 3552 14.2 Wheat Ridge 5 0 1.5 1 1962 10.5
2534 13.5 Inspection Requests • All respondents use voice mail to receive inspection requests • Wheat Ridge, Ridge, Westminster, Aurora, Parker also use fax requests • Wheat Ridge and
Arvada also use online requests Inspection Response Time
Insp. Request Inspection Insp. Window Jurisdiction Deadline conducted available Golden 5:00 pm Next day N/A Arvada 7:00 am Same day Available 2 hr window for Lakewood 7:00 am Same day
homeowners Westminster 7:00 am Same day Schedule w/insp. Aurora 4:00 pm Next day N/A Thornton 5:00 pm Next day 2 hr. window Englewood 7:30 am Same day AM or PM 4 hr. commercial Parker
3:30 pm Next day 2 hr. residential Littleton 4:00 pm Next day Yes Commerce City 4:00 pm Next day AM or PM AM/PM Commercial Wheat Ridge 3:00 pm Next day 2 Hr Homeowner Reinsoection Pol'.
_.. _-Jurisdiction Policy Fee Golden Inspector Discretion $50 Arvada Inspector Discretion $34.50, Elect $52.00 Lakewood Inspector Discretion $35.00 Westminster Inspector Discretion $50.00
Aurora Inspector Discretion $103.00 Thornton Inspector Discretion $55.00 Enqlewood Inspector Discretion $47.00 Parker Inspector Discretion None Littleton Inspector Discretion $47.00
Commerce City Inspector Discretion $50.00, Elect. $75.00 Wheat Ridqe Inspector Discretion $61.00
Interviews Positive Comments ~f'1t 1I1al It was (llmu! Ilmt) someOlh:! <;I;Hle\l f'llforclI1lj !Ill" (orle III WI1(~,,1 F1ldqe [l,¥ISIUII wa.., pro!eSSUlIlilllll dCdhl1~1 wlill 1'-;"U(;5
Inspect'un process ',\IdS Iolllnly 1IlsiJer:lor" WOf.,P(j uut I"SliCS With OJlllr'I,:lur.., Interview Recommendations Hire a[j(jltlonal st,tl! Revise fee schedllh's Improvt: commljlw;allflw;
Set times lor Uispections Oeve1op b.)tter re1a\lonslllp with commurilly qrolJPs
Recommendations Rework diVISion entrance and front counter Plan \aIJle Relned!f' Ilillld(>IJls Create a customer service attitude for division Offer allern,lI,ves iln(J assistance to
cilento, Continue CUSICIlWf service survt.!y6 Create a liaison relationship With community group Wtleat nlcl~lt:' ?020 Wheal Rlrl<]1! BlIsuless [lls trlct Develop homeowner classes Permit
ReqUIrement" Decks Basement FlllIStl"~
·. , -' _ ~ City of ~~Wheat~dge ~OLlCE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor DiTullio and Members of City Council FROM: Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police Ken Johnstone, Director of Community
Development DATE: June 24, 2009 (for the July 6 City Council study session) SUBJECT: Off-Street Parking Surfacing Requirements SUMMARY In the past several months, some concern has been
expressed with vehicles parking on unimproved surfaces (yard areas) in residential districts. The Community Services Team in the Police Department determined that no violations were
occurring based on the following code references. While Section 26-50 I (D) of the Code of Laws establishes specific surfacing requirements for off-street parking, Section 26-50 I (A)
(Scope), limits the enforcement of that section of the Code by exempting existing residential development. The parking regulations generally only apply to new development, substantial
changes in use or substantial expansions of existing uses. The City Attorney's office has confirmed that that the existing Code limits our ability to enforce a parking surface requirement
on existing residential properties. Various issues surrounding residential parking surface requirements have been discussed at January 5, 2009 and April 20, 2009 City Council study sessions.
Staff has conducted additional research on the issues that have been identified, based on Council direction we received at the previous study sessions. We have also reviewed possible
code language amendments with the City Attorney. At the April 20 study session staff requested specific policy direction in several areas. City Council provided consensus direction on
the following items: Short Term I. There should be no parking in residential front yards on certain unimproved surfaces, including grass, compacted dirt, etc. 2. These unacceptable parking
surfaces need to be defined in an ordinance amending the Code of Laws and enforcement of this standard would begin in the near term. Longer Term 1. Define acceptable residential parking
surfaces (the "hard surface" reference in the Code) as something less than the current requirement of asphalt or concrete. A preliminary staff proposal follows later in this memo. Staff
is proposing this as a short term amendment to assist in addressing the short term issues that City Council identified. Defining it in the short term would not have the effect of forcing
existing residential property owners to make improvements to existing driveways that may not meet the surfacing standard.
Off-Street Parking Requirements June 24,2009 Page 2 2. Review options as to how to possibly enforce this standard on existing residential properties in some reasonable time period or
alternatively only on new construction or substantial expansions to existing residential properties. Some potential options follow later in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Short Term
Code Amendments Additions are highlighted and deletions are striel,eA. Sec 26-501. Off-street parking requirements A. Scope. In all zoning districts, off-street parking facilities for
the parking or storage of self propelled motor vehicles and/or licensed trailers for the use of occupants, employees and patrons of building, structures or premises hereafter erected,
altered, used or extended after the effective date of this chapter shall be provided and maintained as herein prescribed, unless otherwise specifically provided. This section shall apply
only to new development, major change of uses (e.g. single family to office; office to restaurant) or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures for which a building permit
of site use approval is required, established subsequent to the adoption of this provision, provided, however, in residential districts, on and after August 31, 2009, it shall be unlawful
to park motor vehicles in areas meeting the definition of landscaping
as defined in Sec. 26-502, on uncontrolled weeds, or on compacted dirt surfaces, unless such surfaces meet the definition of residential driveway as defined herein and said driveways
existed prior to the adoption of this section of the Code IlAless otherwise sfJeeifieally fJFoYided. If an increase of less than twenty-five (25) percent in parking area is needed as
a result of a change of use or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures, the new parking area shall be required to meet only the following design standards: surfacing;
sight distance triangle requirements; usable parking spaces; marking of spaces; truck-tractorlsemi-trailer parking; small car parking; parking space and aisle dimensions; and use and
maintenance of parking areas. Ifan increase of twenty-five (25) percent to fifty (50) percent in parking area is needed as a result of a change of use or substantial extension or expansion
of uses or structures, the new parking area shall meet all design standards as required by subsection GO., of this section. If an increase of more than fifty (50) percent in parking
area is needed as a result of a change of use or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures, all parking areas shall come into conformance with the design standards as
required by subsection GO., of this section. B. Definitions. (1-4 remain the same) 5. Residential Driveway. An area providing direct access from a public or private street or access
easement and leading directly to a garage or other hard surfaced motor vehicle parking area and not exceeding the width of the garage door or doors or the width of the motor vehicle
parking area by more than two feet on either side. side. 2
Off-Street Parking Requirements June 24, 2009 Page 3 6. Hard surface. Durable and dustless materials designed to bear the weight load for the storage of motor vehicles, including concrete,
asphalt, compacted crushed stone, compacted gravel, recycled asphalt, open and closed pavers, including turf block pavers and other similar materials. Longer Term Code Amendment Additions
are highlighted and deletions are striel,eA. 1. Expand on the surfacing requirements for driveways, to maintain the requirement that the first 25 feet be asphalt or concrete, as already
established in Code Section 26-501.0.1, but allow that the remainder of the driveway could be a "hard surface", as defined above. Section 26-501 D. Design Standards. 1. Surfacing. For
all uses other than single-family dwellings in agricultural zone districts, areas subject to wheeled traffic for access, parking, sales or storage, shall be properly graded for drainage
and on-site detention of storm runoff. These areas shall be surfaced with concrete, asphalt or brick pavers. For one-or two-family dwellings, the first twentyfive (25) feet of driveway
area from the existing edge of pavement into the site shall be surfaced with concrete, asphalt, brick pavers or similar materials. The remaining portion of the driveway may be improved
as a "hard surface", as defined herein. The auxiliary storage of motorized and non-motorized vehicles cannot occur within six (6) feet of the front property line. The storage area must
be hard surfaced and must be built so that the material used as to the parking surface stays contained within the parking pad (with the use of concrete curbs, railroad ties, etc.). 2.
Consider whether to enforce the residential driveway and/or off-street parking surfacing requirements on all existing residential properties within some reasonable period of time (1
year, 2 years, 5 years?). The properties that this new requirement would potentially apply to would be existing unimproved driveways, which might be compacted dirt and existing motor
vehicle parking areas, which are something less than the new definition of hard surface that we are proposing a definition of above. If that were to be the direction given by City Council,
we would need to add a section to 26-501. Pending City Council direction, we have not proposed that code section at this time. OUTSTANDING POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Confirm that the proposed
short term code amendments are consistent with the policy direction previously received from City Council. 2. We have proposed a code amendment to clarify that driveways, beyond the
first 25 feet off of a street, may be "hard surfaced". Should we also allow "ribbons" of asphalt, concrete, brick pavers or other hard surfaces to be permissible as driveway surfaces?
Staff does not recommend those for parking surfaces as the landscape materials that would be contained between the ribbons are not likely to survive if repetitively parked over. 3
Off-Street Parking Requirements June 24, 2009 Page 4 3. Does Council desire to make the new surfacing requirements for residential driveways applicable immediately? If not, over what
time period? DB: KJ Attachments: Section 26-50 I -Off-Street Parking Requirements Section 26-502 -Landscaping Requirements Section 26-621 -Residential Parking 4
\ ZONING AND DEVELOPEMENT § 26-501 ARTICLE V. DESIGN STANDARDS Sec. 26·501. Off·street parking requirements. A. Scope. In all zoning districts, off-street parking facilities for the
parking or storage of self-propelled motor vehicles and/or licensed trailers for the use of occupants, employees and patrons of the buildings, structures or premises bereafter erected,
altered, used or extended after the effective date of this chapter shall be provided and maintained as herein prescribed, unless otherwise specifically provided. This section shall apply
only to new development, major cbange of uses (e.g., single-family to office; office to restaurant) or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures for which a building permit
or site use approval is required, established subsequent to the adoption of this provision, unless otherwise specifically provided. If an increase of less than twenty-five (25) percent
in parking area is needed as a result of a change afuse or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures, the new parking area shall be required to meet only the following
design standards: surfacing; sight distance triangle requirements; usable parking spaces; marking of spaces; truck-tractorlsemi-trailer parking; small car parking; parking space and
aisle djmensions; and use and maintenance of parking areas. If an increase of twenty-five (25) percent to fifty (50) percent in parking area is needed as a resnlt of a change of use
or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures, the new parking area added shall meet all design standards as required by subsection C., of this section_ If an increase
of more than fifty (50) percent in parking area is needed as a result of change of use or substantial extension or expansion of uses or structures, all parking areas shall come into
conformance with the design standards as required by subsection C., of this section. B. Definitions. 1. Floor area. Floor area shall mean the gross interior floor area of the entire
building or portion of building devoted to a specific use or uses, less the following areas: a. Mechanical/utility room. b. Restrooms. c. Elevators, stainvelis. d. Show windows. e. Hallways.
f. Common areas. g. Kitchen areas. For the purpose of estimating parking requirements where detailed calculations for the above-stated exceptions al'e lacking, it will be assumed that
such excepted space covers no more than ten (10) percent of gross floor area. 2. Gross leasable area. The total interior floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use and
includes both owned and leased area, but excludes common mall areas not designed for specific use such as pedestrian circulation, common pbysical plant and maintenance areas. 3. Hospital
bassinets. In hospitals, bassinets shall not be counted as beds. 4. Seating. In places of public or private assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other seating
facilities, each twenty (20) inches of seating facility shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements for off-street parking facilities un~er this chapter.
Supp. No. 35 1797 ATTACHMENT 1
§ 26-501 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE 5. Street parking. Street parking shall mean parking spaces which are available within the public streets immediately adjacent to a one-or two-family residential
lot or development, excluding areas designated as no parking zones. For each one-or two-family dwelling, two (2) street parking spaces shall be provided. In cases where street parking
does not add up to two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, the difference shall be made up on the lot or development. 6. Unified shopping centel: A principally retailed facility which
may also include service and office-type uses in a single main structure, and ownership or common control elements exist so that the entire development functions as a unit. C. General
provisions. 1. Additions. Nothing in this section shall prevent extension of, or addition to, a building, structure or use into an existing parking area provided the same amount of parking
spaces taken by the extension or addition is provided by an enlargement of the existing parking area, or if additional parking is found elsewhere in accordance with these regulations
herein, and provided the total number of spaces required for all uses on the lot are met. 2. Planned development (PRD, peD, PID, PHD). In planned developments, except for unified shopping
centers over one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of floor area provided for below, parking shall be considered with regard to those limitations for the various use requirements.
The total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Where it is desired to share the parking spaces
between two (2) or more uses, the use of such parking spaces shall be predicated upon the proven fact that the uses will not require said parking space at simultaneous times. Only where
it can be shown that the uses have mutually exclusive operating hours shall shared parking arrangements be approved. 3. Mixed occupancy and collective parking. In the case of mixed uses
on a sing1e parcel or within a single building, or of collective parking for several buildings or uses on two (2) or more parcels, except for shopping centers over one hundred thousand
(100,000) square feet, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for each of the various uses computed separately. Off-street parking
facilities for one (1) use shall not be construed as providing required parking for any other use except as provided for under planned developments. Uuified shopping centers with over
one hundred thousand (l00,000) square reet of total combined floor area, which may be either in a single structure or several structures within a single uni.fied development, and which
may include various kinds of uses, shall be required to provide a minimum parking ratio offour (4) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of total combined gross leasable floor
area. 4. Location. a. Off-street parking facilities for any use shall be provided and located on the same lot as the use or uses they are intended to serve except as provided for herein.
b. If sufficient parking spaces cannot be accommodated on the lot for any use, off-lot parking may be used provided said parking area is within three hundred (300) feet of the nearest
point on the structure or use for which the parking is intended to serve and the off-lot parking is a permitted use as listed in the Table of Uses for the zone district in which the
off-lot parking will be located. c. Supp. No. 35 In situations where off-lot parking is required and the off-lot site is owned by others, a written agreement between the city, the owner
who shall provide the additional parking, and the owner of the property seeking the parking shall be entered into. Said agreement shall be recorded as a deed restriction and shall specifY
the number and location of the 1798 \
Supp. No. 35 ZONING AND DEVELOPEMENT § 26-501 parking spaces. Approval of said agreement by the city shall consider the impact of the parking on adjacent or nearby residential properties.
Said agreement may be terminated only if adequate onsite or ofi"site parking 1798.1
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT 126·501 space is provided through other means as approved by the director of community development. The agreement shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk
and Recorder's Office and shall be enforced until all three (3) parties sign a release. 5. Parking of recreational vehicles, travel trailers and pickup-mounted campers. a. In all zone
districts, the use of recreational vehicles, travel trailers and pickup-mounted campers for living quarters is prohibited except in approved RV parks. b. Parking of such vehicles in
an approved RV park shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) days within the same RV park. D. Design standards. 1. Surfacing. For all uses other than single-family dwellings in agricultural
zone districts, areas subject to wheeled traffic for access, parking, sales or storage, shall be properly graded for drainage and on-site detention of storm runoff. These areas shall
be surfaced with concrete, asphalt or brick pavers. For one-or two-family dwellings, tbe first twenty-five (25) feet of driveway area from the existing edge of pavement into the site
shall be surfaced with concrete, asphalt, brick pavers or similar materials. The auxiliary storage of motorized or non-motorized vehicles cannot occur within six (6) feet of the fcont
property line. The storage area must be hard surfaced and must be built so that the material used as to the parking surface stays contained within the parking pad (with the use of concrete
curbs, railroad ties, etc). For all uses, driveway connections with the public street must be paved between the property line and the ensting edge of asphalt of the street. 2. Islands.
All parking areas in excess of thirty (30) spaces shall have at least one (1) interior landscaped island per thirty (30) spaces. Each such landscaped island shall occupy the equivalent
of one (1) parking space (minimum) and each sucb required island shall be landscaped with a minimum of one (1) two-inch caliper tree or larger and four (4) shrubs or accepted groundcover,
At the discretion of the owner, and with approval of the director of community development, based upon the intent and purpose of this section, an acceptable alternative to inclividual
islands would be the equivalent aggregate landscaped area developed in larger islands or as interior divider strips. Parking lot islands shall be irrigated with an automated sprillkler
and have raised concrete curbs. No landscaping within landscaped islands may obstruct visibility for vehicles entering, maneuvering in, or exiting the parking lot. 3. Lighting. Any lighting
used to illuminate any off-street parking area shall not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. The light source shall be indirect, cliffused or shielded type fixtures, installed
to reduce glare and the consequent interference with adjacent streets and adjoining residential properties. Fixtures shall be attached to a building or mounted on poles and shall be
in accordance with the requirements of section 26·503. 4. Vehicular access. Vehicular access to to any property shall be controlled in such a manner as to protect the traffic-carrying
capacity of the street upon which the property abuts, as well as to protect the value of the adjacent property. a. For all uses other than one~ and two-family dwellings, no vehicle entrances
or exits may be closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any property line except when used for joint access for two (2) or more lots. Supp. No. 31 1799
§ 26·501 WHEAT JUDGE CITY CODE b. For all uses other than one-and two-family dwellings, vehicle entrances or exits on the same lot shall be spaced at not less than 100-foot intervals.
The 100-foot spacing shall be measured from the interior edge of both access points. c. For all uses, comer lots shall have no vehicular entrances or ex.its located closer than twenty-five
(25) feet from any two (2) intersecting street rights-or-way, except on arterial or major collector streets such distance shall be fifty (50) feet. d_ In all residential districts, curb
cuts for property access shall be not less than ten (10) feet and not more than twenty-four (24) feet in width_ Curb cuts in commercial and industrial districts shall not be more than
thirty-five (35) feet in width when serving an individual property and shall not in any instance be less than twenty (20) feet. For all uses, one (1) access point per property ownership
will be permitted, unless a site plan or traffic study approved by the city shows that additional access points are required to adequately handle driveway volumes and will not be detrimental
to traffic flow on adjacent public streets. A joint curb cut, one (1) which serves more than one (1) property. may not exceed forty-five (45) feet in width. One (1) access point per
property ownersh.ip will be permitted, unless a site plan or traffic study approved by the city shows that additional access points are required to adequately handle driveway volumes
and will not be detrimental to traffic flow on adjacent public streets. e. In cases where it is possible to provide one (1) access point which will serve adjacent properties or where
adherence to these requirements would leave a parcel of property without vehicular access, curb cut setback or spacing requirements may be reduced or enlarged so as to permit a single
vehicular access point if approved by the public works director. f. Low-density residential uses are permitted to have "horseshoe-shapedu driveways provided that the public street accesses
are Olirty (30) feet apart at the closest point (interior edges). g. The public works director may approve a modification to or waiver to the vehicle access standards and requirements
stated in this subsection 4., based upon consideration of traffic characteristics. both on and off of the site, with the primary purpose of preserving public safety. 5. Off-street loading.
Loading space shall be provided at a rate deemed necessary by the owner. Loading shall not occur from any public street, major interior drive, nor occupy or intrude into any ftre lane
or required parking spaces. Where possible, loading docks must be located on the site so as not to be viewed from major roads, access ways, or residentially zoned property. The typical
dimensions of an off-street loading space aro twelve (12) feet wide by forty (40) feet long, with a minimum vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet. A minimum maneuvering aisle width
of forty (40) feet shall be provided behind the oIT-street loading space. These dimensions may be altered by the public works director based on the specific needs of the business and
anticipated volumes of use. 6. Usable parking spaces. Any parking stall which is unusable due to maneuverability difficulties or does not have clear access into and out of its parking
space shall not be considered in the count of the total number of available parking spaces on the property_ Double-loaded spaces (parking where one (1) vehicle blocks another) are considered
unusable. 7. Back-out parking. Except for one-and two-family dwellings, all parking areas shall be designed so that vehicles exiting from the parking area will not be required to back
out across any sidewalk or public right-of-way. Supp. No. 31 1800 i I I· I
WNING AND DEVEWPMENT ! 26-501 8. OM-way traffic /low. Parking which is designed for one-way traffic shall be clearly indicated as such by the use of a sign or arrow designating the direction
of traffic flow and by the words "one-way." 9. Handicap parking. For all uses other than one-and two-family dwellings, parking shall be provided for the handicapped at the minimum rate
consistent with the following table. The minimum width of an accessible parking space shall be eight and one-half (8'12) feet with an adjacent accessible aisle with a minimum width of
five (5) feet. Two (2) accessible parking spaces may share a cornman aisle. Said spaces shall have a minimum length of eighteen (18) feet. Handicapped Parking Total Number of Off-Street
Spaces Required 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-300 301-400 401---500 501-1,000 >1,000 Number of Handicapped Spaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2% of total spaces required 20 plus
1 for each 100 over 100 One (1) in every eight (8) accessible spaces, but not less than one (1), shall be designated "van accessible" and shall be served by an access aisle a minimum
of eight (a) feet in width. 10. (Signage; location; etc.) Each handicap space shall be marked with a freestanding sign using the standard uniform words andlor symbols that signify the
space as parking for the handicapped only. The handicapped symbol shall also be painted on the pavement. Said parking space shall be located as near to the entrance of the use as practically
possible and shall be so designed (unless it is impossible to do so) that circulation between the veruele and the building entrance shall not involve crossing any area used for vehicular
circulation. The total number of spaces provided for the handicapped shall be included in the total number of parking spaces otherwise required by this section. 11. Marking of parking
spaces. Parking spaces shall be marked and maintained on the pavement and any other directional markings/signs shall be installed as required by the city to ensure the approved use of
space, direction of traffic flow and general safety in accordance with the approved parking plan. 12. Parking lot design standards for truck-tractors and lor semi-trailers. Where it
is desired to park <Tuck-tractors andlor semi-trallers as regulated by section 26-618 and 26·619, a parking plan shall be submitted which shows the location. extent and size of the proposed
truck-tractor and semi-trailer parking, and which indicates proposed screening. lighting, landscaping, circulation, type of paving, and any other feature which will help the planning
commission, city council and staff to evaluate the proposal and potential impacts. The following minimum standards shall be used in designing such parking lots: Supp. No. 31 1801
§ 26·501 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE a. Dimensions; Feet (1) Tractor only: Length 25 Width 12 Aisle width 28 (2) Trailer only: Length 40 Width 12 Aisle width 40 (3) Combo tractor and trailer:
Length 70 Width 12 Aisle Width 40 b. All parking and circulation areas sh.all be paved to acceptable engineering standards with bituminous concrete or portland concrete. c. Each parking
stall shall be supplied with an electrical outlet to permit vehicles to be connected to electricity while parked. d. Unattended truck-tractors shall not be allowed to idle. e. The use
of standard automobile parking spaces and/or circulation aisles for truck-tractor and/or semi-trailer parking or circulation is prohibited. 13. Parking plan required. All plans for the
construction of any parking facility must be approved by the director of community development and a miscellaneous permit issued before constTuction is started. No such land shall be
used for parking until approved by the director. The plan must contain the following minimum information: a. Number, location and size of parking stalls. b. Widths of aisles and islands.
c. Location ofland::;caping areas and type of landscaping, including size. d. '!Ype of surfacing. e. Scale and north arrow. f. Location of streets, curb cuts and property boundaries.
g. Traffic directional arrows. sign age and markings. h. Loading areas. i. Drainage provisions. j. Location and direction of proposed lighting. k. Location, height, and type of walls
or fences to be constructed. 14. Uses not specified. In the case of a use not specifically mentioned, the requirements for off-street parking facilities for a similar use shall be detennined
by the director of community development based upon comparison to similar uses. His decision may be appealed to the board ofadjusbnent. 15. Fractions. "When units of measurements determining
number of required parking spaces result in the requirement of a fractional space, any fraction shall require one (1) parking space. Supp. No. 31 1802 i I ! i I I i I I I ! I
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-501 16. Small car parking. In parking lots with thirty (30) spaces or more, twenty (20) percent of the required parking spaces may be designated for small
or compact cars; provided, that small car parking area or spaces shall be clearly labeled or otherwise distinguished from full-sized parking areas or spaces. 17. Bumper, curb and wheel
stops. 'Ib ensure the proper maintenance of these facilities, parking areas shall be designed so that a parked vehicle does not overhang the public right-of-way or public sidewalk. A
permanent curb, bumper, wheel stop or similar device shall be installed which shall be adequate to protect the right-of-way or sidewalk from vehicular overhang and to protect any structure
from yehicular damage. If such protection is provided by means of a method designed to stop the wheel rather than the bumper of the vehicle, the stopping edge shall be placed no closer
than two (2) feet from the·edges of the public right-of-way, sidewalk or building. A parked vehicle may overhang a landscape area up to two (2) feet. Such landscaped area must be low
maintenance and may be included as a part of the length of the parking stall. IS. Restrictions on the use of nonresidential parking areas. No parking area shall be used for the sale,
storage, repair of, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies. This shall not apply to vehicles on sales lots and does not preclude emergency repairs
to a motor vehicle. For automotive repair facilities, vehicles stored on the property in excess of seventy-two (72) hours for the purpose of being repaired must be screened from view
from adjacent streets and properties by a six-foot high solid fence. 19. Stacking_ A stacking space is an area for motor vehicles to line up in while waiting to go through a drive-through
facility, or within a designed drop-off or pick-up zone. Stacking spaces shall be a minimum of eight and one-half (8'M feet width and eighteen (IS) feet long and shall not double as
a circulation driveway, maneuvering area or off-street parking space, 20. Parking space and aisle dimension. The following table establishes the minimum parking lot space and aisle dimensions
for full-size and compact automobiles. Full-Sized Cars: Minimum Parking Standards Angle o· 30· 45· 60· 90· (Parallel) Width S' 8'6n 8'6" 8'6" 8'6" Length 22' IS' IS' IS' IS' Aisle Width
12' 12' 13' 17'6" 22' Compact Cars: Angle o· (Parallel) 30· 45· 60· 90· Width 7' 7'6" 7'611 7'6" T6u Length 19' 15' 15' 15' 15' Aisle Width 11' 11' 12' 16' 19' The following diagram
illustrates typical parking stall layout for full-sized and compact cars in accordance with the above standards: Supp. No. 29 1S03
§ 26-501 Supp. No. 29 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE 27 • " I l: • 00",_ AGUAE! 2e-aH.1 lYPlCJrL PARKtiG STALL LAYOUT ~ COMPACTCAFtS ---1 AJllSIZECAAS ~ " ,. -FIGURE 26-501 .2 SAMPLE PARKING
lOT CONFIGURATION FOR COMBINATION FULL SIZE AND COMPACT CARS Sample Parking Lot Configuration for Combination Full-Size and Compact Cars 1804 \. i I I, I i I I I I I I I I,
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-501 21. Multifamily parking lots. Parking for multifamily development shall not be placed within the minimum front yard setback. Where parking is to be placed
within a side or rear yard which is adjacent to a public street, a landscape buffer of at least ten (10) reet is required. 22. Use and maintenallCe of parking area. For all uses, including
one-and two-family dwelling uses, parking or vehicles shall be limited to those areas specifically developed for parking and shall not be permitted within landscaped areas, designated
fire lanes, loading zones, or other areas not designed and developed for parking. All parking and drive areas shall be maintained so as to prevent unsafe, muddy, dusty, weedy, or unsightly
or blighting conditions. The provisions of this subsection (21)[22.) shall apply to both existing and future conditions. E. Appeal/variances and waivers to standards: Variances and waivers
to parking requirements, shall be processed as a variance pursuant to section 26-115. F. Schedule of required off-street parking: Use Standard Requirement Amusement/recreational enterprises
such as 1 space per each 2 persons based on designed
use swimming pools, skating rinka, health clubs, or occupant capacity snas etc. Boardin" and roomin" house 1 soace oer roest room Bow lin""""i alleYs 4 spaces per lane plus 1 space ner
each emolovee Churches 1 snace per each 4 seata in main assemblv area Congregate care center 0.75 space per each bedroom plus 1 space for each emolovee on maximum shift Drive-in restaurants
(excluding drive-up win-1 space per 100 square feet of floor area dows) Drive-up windows (fnod, liquor, bank, etc.) 6 stacking spaces per window, plus standard loarkin" as reouired for
inside uses Eating and drinking establishments or similar 1 space per 75 square feet of gross leasable area I nlaces of assemblv Educational institutions (nublic ornrivate): -Elementary
schools 1 space per each classroom or each 20 students, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for each teacher and administrative staff -Junior high schools 1 space per each 10 students
or 1 space per each 5 seats in auditorium or main assembly area, whichever is £reater -Senior high school 1 space per each faculty or staff plus 1 space per each 5 students or 1 space
per each 5 seats in an auditcrium or assembly area, whichever is I ",eater -Colleges, universities, vocational, trade or com-1 space per each faculty or staff plus 1 space per mercial
schools each 100 souare feet of class room area Elderly group home 0.5 space for each elderly occupant, plus the standard residential dweJJin" requirement Fleet or business-related parking
1 space for each company related vehicle in addition tc emolovee and customer oarkin" Funeral homes or mortuaries 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area open for public use Supp.
No. 29 1805
§ 26-501 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE Use Standard Requirement Golf courses (9 or 18 hole and 3 par) 2 spaces per hole plus 1 space per employee on maximum shift Hospitals, nursing homes or
other similar uses 1 space per each 5 beds plus 1 space for each em-I ployee on maximum shift Hotels and motels 1 space per guest room plus parking for associated uses such as restaurant
or lounge, based on their requirements, plus 1 space per employee on maximum shift Laboratories 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area Libraries. museums, galleries 1 space per 300
square feet of floor area Lumber yards 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area in main sales building. Manufacturing, processing, assembly or similar 1 space per 500 square feet of
floor area industrial uses Medical and dental offices and clinics 1 space per 150 square feet of floor area where 50% or more of a building is to be used for medical or dental offices
or clinics; when less than 50% of a building is used for medical/dental offices or clinics, the snme standard as for retail, office and service establishments apply Miniature golf, driving
range, skeet or archery 1 space per hole or platform plus 1 space per emrange ployee on maximum shift Motor fueling stations, repair garages, tire stores, 1 space per employee on maximum
shift plus 2 car wash, etc. spaces per bay or stall Multifamily elderly housing, exclusively devoted 1.25 spaces for each 1 bedroom unit for persons 60 years or older 1.5 spaces per
2 bedroom unit if parcel is 1 acre or larger, or 1.75 spaces per 2 bedroom unit if parcel is less than 1 acre; 2.0 spaces per 3 bedroom unit; 2.5 spaces per 4 or more bedroom unit Multifamily
residential , 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit 2.0 spaces per 2 or 3 bedroom unit 2.6 spaces per 4 or more bedroom unit Plus 1 additional space for each 10 spaces shall be required as desigoated
visitor parking. I i Such visitor parking shall not be used by residents for personal parking nor for storage of utility or recreation vehicles. New single-and two-family residential:
-With street parking 2 spaces per dwelling unit -Without street parking 4 spaces per dwelling unit Office/warehouse 1 space per 600 square feet of area devoted to warehouse or work area
(maximum of 75% of total area) plus 1 space per 300 square feet of retail, wholesale or office area (minimum of 25% of total area) Supp_ No. 29 1806
§ 26-502 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE 3. All property owners/occupants shall be responsible for maintenance of landscaping within the portion of the public right-of-way between the back of
the curb or street pavement and adjacent private property. H. Acceptable street trees shall be determined by the community development director. Street trees in the Streetscape and Architectural
Design Overlay districts shall conform to the plant list contained in the streetscape and architectural design manual. I. Waivers and variances. Generally. for waivers and variances,
see section 26-115. Whenever a waiver or variance is required which would be reviewed by the board of adjustment, planning commission or city council, consideration should be given regarding
alternatives to total waiver requirements (for example, substituting planter boxes or hanging haskets for normal ground landscaping). (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1288,
§§ 1, 2, 5-12-03; Ord. No. 1330, § 1, 8-9-04) Sec. 26·503. Exterior lighting. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the spillover of light and glare from exterior lighting
on operators of motor vehicles, pedestrians and land uses in the proximity of the light source. With respect to motor vehicles in particular, safety considerations form the basis of
these regulations. In other cases, both the nuisance and hazard aspects of glare, reflected light and incidental spillover light are regulated. This section does not apply to public
street lighting or to public outdoor parks and recreation uses. B. Permit required. An electrical permit application shall be required and a permit issued prior to installation or substantial
modification of any exterior lighting. The permit application shall be accompanied by information required by the uniform electrical code and additional information that may be necessary
to determine potential negative effects upon adjacent properties and public streets including, but not limited to, a plot plan showing location and orientation of lighting standards,
building elevations showing location and orientation of lighting standards, lighting standard specifications including height, type (Le., cutoff, non-cutoff, spot, floodlight, etc.),
peak candlepower diagram, and any shielding devices to be incorporated so as to minimize incidental light spillover or glare. C. Lighting standards. The following restrictions shall
apply to outdoor light control, including lighting within or directed upon outdoor sjgns: 1. All fixtures shall be fully shielded. For purposes oftms section, fully shielded shall mean
fixtures constructed so that light rays emitted are projected below, and not above, the horizontal plane of the fixture, such that the source of illumination (bulb or direct lamp) is
not visible from adjacent property or rights-of-way. All light fixtures shall be downcast to minimize undesirable effects of illumination such as glare, skyglow and light pollution.
2. All metal halide and fluorescent fixtures shall be filtered with glass, acrylic or translucent enclosures. 3. Only mgh-pressure sodium (HPS), low pressure sodium (LPS) or incandescent
fixtures shall be permitted in commercial and multifamily residential parking areas. The level of illumination shall be consistent with minimum industry standards adopted by the illuminating
engineering society. 4. All exterior lighting shall be designed and situated so that suhstantially all oftbe directly emitted ligbt falls within tbe property boundaries. 5. Exterior
lighting shall also be designed and situated so that no incidental or reflected light interferes with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent land uses, or safe movement of motor vehicles on
public streets. Supp. No. 34 1812 ATTACHMENT 2
\ ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-502 2. When a parking lot is placed betweeh the public right-of-way and the structure(s), a screening of the parking area shall be established between the
right-of-way and the parking area. This view-obscuring screen shall be composed of live plantings, berms, fences or walls, or a combination thereof. The height of the screening sball
be subject to the sight distance triangle requirements. See section 26-603. F. Plantings. 1. In all cases, the use ofxeridwaterwise plant materials is encouraged. 2. Minimum size of
plant and other materials: a. Deciduous trees: 1\vo-inch caliper, measured one (1) foot above the ground. Trees with a caliper in excess of five (5) inches may be counted as two (2)
trees. Trees with a caliper in excess of ten (10) inches may be counted as three (3) trees. b. Ornamental and flowering trees: 1\vo-inch caliper, one (1) foot above the ground. c. Evergreen
Trees: Six (6) feet in height. d. Flowering and evergreen shrubs and hedges: Five-gallon size. e. Vmes and groundcovers: One-gallon size. f. Mulch: A minimum of three (3) inches in depth
in areas protected from wind erosion. g. River rock: A minimum of one (1) inch to two (2) inches in size and at least three (3) inches in depth over a weed barrier groundcover. h . When
required in the Streetscape Overlay District, street trees within or adjacent to pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of three (3) inches in caliper with a minimum of seven (7) feet
of head clearance to the lowest branches. 3. Completion of landscaping. When the final landscape plan is submitted, a date for completion of all plantings and related work shall be included
on the plan. Landscaping shall be installed and completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In extenuating circumstances, such as adverse weather, where occupancy
is requested pdor to completion of landscaping, an irrevocable letter of credit or escrow account shall be accepted for tbe completion of necessary landscaping, said financial guarantee
to be equal to one and one-fourth (1'/,) times the cost of the landscaping. A cost estimate for landscaping not installed at that time shall be presented to the department of community
development for approval. Letters of credit or escrows shall not be released until all planting and finish materials sbown on the approved landscape plan are installed and accepted.
The amount of tbe escrow or letter of credit shall be determined by the department of community development based on tbe submitted landscaping plan. Should the required landscaping not
be properly installed upon the expiration of the letter of credit or escrow account, the city reserves the right to use such funds to have the required landscaping placed upon the subject
premises. Any costs incurred by tbe city in excess of the funds provided by the letter of credit or escrow shall be recovered by the city through normal lien proceedings. G. Maintenance.
1. The developer, its successor andlor the property owner shall be responsible for regular weeding, irrigating, fertilizing, pruning or other maintenance of all plantings as needed in
order to ensure the survival of any required landscaping. The city may require the removal and replacement of such required landscaping where dead, diseased or damaged landscaping is
found. 2. Minor changes in the approved landscaping plan may be made with the approval of the director of community development if the total area of landscaping is not reduced below
minimum standards and placement is not substantially changed. Supp. No. 34 1811
§ 26-502 WHEAT rrrnGE CITY CODE d_ Landscaping shall not be less than thirty (30) percent of the total lot area. e. For new multi-family developments, no more than sixty (60) percent
of the total landscaped coverage on the lot shall be comprised of turf. TI,e use of low water demand turf varieties such as buffalo grass, blue grama grass and tall fescue is encouraged.
3. Nonresidential uses: a. Reqllired within the minimum building setbacks abutting public rights-of-way: one (1) tree, deciduous or evergreen, for every thirty (30) feet (or portion
thereot) of street frontage. This should not be construed to mean trees placed thirty (30) feet on center_ b. In adilition to trees required based upon public street frontage, one (1)
tree and ten (10) shrubs are required for every one thousand (1,000) square reet of required landscape area. c. Required landscaped areas shall be as follows: (1) Landscaping shall not
be less than twenty (20) percent of the gross lot area. (2) On any nonresidentially zoned property abutting 44th Avenue, 38th Avenue, Kipling Street, Wadsworth Boulevard, Youngficld
Street, Ward Road, Sheridan Boulevard, or 1-70 frontage roads, a landscaped area measuring ten (10) feet from the edge of the right-of-way is required for the entire length of the property
abutting these roadways, except for curb cuts. This area may be used to meet the other area requirements. (3) On residentially zoned property, a minimum ten-foot landscape buffer is
required adjacent to public streets abutting front or side yards. (4) For new lloru-esidential developments, no more than thirty (30) percent of the total landscaped coverage on the
lot shall be comprised ofturf. The use oflow water demand turf varieties such as buffalo grass, blue grama grass and tall fescue is encouraged. (5) Additional requirements may apply
if the project is located in the Streetscape Overlay District. d. All nonresidential uses located adjacent to residentially zoned areas or agriculturally zoned areas shall provide a
screened or landscaped buffer area consisting of either or both of the following: (1) A six-foot high solid fence or landscaped hedge with a mature height of six (6) feet; or (2) A strip
of land at least fifteen (15) feet wide planted with a variety of vegetation and a minimum density of one (1) shrub or tree per every two (2) linear feet of buffer area adjacent to the
residential or agricultural zoned property. Notlting contained in tltis section shall prohibit any landowner from landscaping in excess of the minimum reqllirements stated herein, either
on their property or witltin public right-of-way, if approved by the public works director; however, offsite landscaping cannot reduce the onsite requirements. E. Landscape buffering
for parking lots_ l. Whenever a parking lot boundary adjoins property zoned for low-or medium-density residential use, or if zoned agricultural but developed as residential, a landscape
bnffer of six (6) feet from said lot boundru-y shall be required_ Witltin the six-foot landscape bnffer, a six-foot-ltigh view-obscuring fence, decorative wall or landscaped hedge with
a natural height of six (6) reet shall be provided. In addition, grass or other acceptable groundcover or trees and/or shrubs shall be planted witltin the landscape bnffer areas as approved
by the director of community development through a landscape plan. Supp. No. 35 1810
\ ZONING AND DEVELOPEMENT § 26-502 4. Landscaping shall be installed only on the property to be developed or for which a building permit is applied. For properties with e,osting development,
landscaping in addition to e,osting landscaping shall be required on a percentage basis determined either according to square footage added, or substantially altered, or value added
to the premises by proposed improvements, whichever is higher, up to the maDmum required for that district. E,osting valuation and valuation of proposed changes shall be based on valuation
tables within tbe adopted building code. The term "substantially altered" means that the value of remodeling excess fifty (50) percent of the value of the building prior to such improvements.
5. All new landscaped areas shall be served by a functioning automatic irrigation system which combines drip and subsurface irrigation with high efficiency sprinklers except on individual
single-family and duplex residential lots. The requirement for a functioning automatic irrigation system may be waived with an approved xeriscaping/waterwise plan. All new irrigation
systems shall be designed to be zoned according to water needs of proposed plant materials. There should be separate zones for turf grasses and sbrub bed areas, for sun and shade and
other climatic conditions and according to tbe water demands of the plant material. All new irrigation systems shall be equipped with automatic rain shut-off devices. 6. In all districts,
any area of the lot not covered by building, parking, walkways, storage or display area must be landscaped. 7. Recirculated water shall be used for new decorative water features and
fountains. B. Artificial turf or plant materials are not allowed. 9. The irrigation oflandscaped areas shall be consistent with the restrictions imposed by the water district in which
a property is located. 10. No person, organization, OT association may create or impose restrictive covenants, conditions, restrictions, deed clauses or other agreements between the
parties that prevent the use of xericlwaterwise landscaping. D. District requirements: 1. Singz,,-and twofamily residential uses: a. One (1) street tree per seventy (70) feet (or portion
thereoD of street frontage to be placed within the front setback prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This shall not be construed to mean trees placed seventy (70) feet
on center. b. No less than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross lot area and no less than one hundred (100) percent ofthe front yard (exclusive of driveway and sidewalk access to the
home) shall be landscaped. c. For new single family and two family residences, no more tha.n fifty (50) percent of the total landscaped coverage on the lot shall be comprised of turf.
The use oflow water demand turf varieties such as buffalo grass, blue grama grass and tall fescue is encouraged. 2. Multifamily residential uses: a. Required within the minimum building
setbacks abutting public right-of-way: one (1) tree, deciduous or evergreen, for every thirty (30) feet (or portion thereoD of street frontage. This should not be construed to mean trees
placed thirty (30) feet on center. b. In addition to trees required based upon public street frontage, one (I) tree and ten (IO) shrubs are required for every one thousand (I,OOO) square
feet ofrequired landscape area. c. Supp. No. 35 Except for pedestrian and vehicular access, the minimum required front yard shall be fully landscaped. 1B09 I .J
§ 26·502 WHEA'I' RmGE CITY CODE Sidewalks, whether paved or gravel, which serve as functional links between parking areas and main structures, or which serve as general public access
routes around a main structure, or between a main structure and a public street or alley, shall not be counted as landscaping. Other sidewalks or paths which serve as casual access to
or through landscape areas may be counted a nonliving landscape features. B. Landscape plan: A landscape plan is required to be submitted with the required building permit or development
plan for all public, semi·public, mnlti·family, commercial and industrial development, redevelopment, addition or change in use. The plan shall be approved by the director of community
development. The following information shall be included in the plan: L Date, north point and scale (scale not to exceed one (1) inch equalling forty (40) feet with one (1) inch equalling
twenty (20) feet desirable), name and location of the development; name(s) of owner(s); name, address and telephone number of person or firm preparing the plan; name and telephone number
of the contact person for the project. 2. 1bpographic contours and spot elevations on final grading plan adequate to identify and properly specify landscaping for area needing slope
protection. 3. Location of property lines with dimensions, adjacent streets and right-of-way, drainage features, building and structures, parking, loading and vehicular circulation areas,
driveways, underground and/or overhead utility lines, and traffic sight distance triangles. 4. Landscaped areas on the site including: a. Locations, dimensions and square footage of
all landscaped areas. This shall include calculations for total lot area, total landscaped area, area of living vegetation and area of non-living material. b. The locations, types, sizes
and quantities of proposed plant and other materials. Common and hotanical names shall be identified adjacent to all plant material or by use of a key and legend. c. The location, size,
materials and treatment of non-living landscaped areas. d. The species, location and size of any existing plant materials to be preserved. e. The species, location and size of any existing
plant materials to be removed. 5. Location and type of the irrigation system provided. 6. A description of existing trees which are proposed to be preserved during site preparation and
construction. C. Landscape area requirements: L Any combination of two (2) or more of the following: grass, flowers, shrubbery, deciduous and coniferous trees, which shall be maintained
in an orderly manner. The use of non-living material such as bark, rock or ornamental ohjects shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the required landscaping area. Coverage sball
be detennined for the projected growth after two (2) full growing seasons. 2. The growth of any plantings or the erection of any landscape structure or berm is regulated by section 26-603B.
3. Except for approved street trees, the landscaping required in the right-of-way between the property line and the curbline shall not he permitted to obtain a height greater than thirty-six
(36) inches ahove the level of the roadway. Supp. No. 35 1808 I i I
ZONING AND DEVELQPEMENT § 26-502 Use Standard Requirement Places of public or private assembly, such as COffi-Inunity buildings, clubs, lodges, auditoriums, stawums, gymnasiums: (a)
For assembly rooms over 500 square feet auditoriums and stadiums: -With fixed seats 1 space per each 4 seats -Without fixed seats 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area or Ie-round
area used for seating (b) For offices, activity rooms or meeting rooms 1 space per 300 sQuare feet of floor area Post offices and public buildings or uses, if not 1 space per 300 square
feet of floor area plus 1 otherwise listed space for each agency owned vehicle Preschools, daycare, nurseries 1 space per each faculty or staff member plus 1 off-street loading/unloading
space per each 8 students or children plus 1 parking space for each bus or van operated by the child care facility Residential group homes for youths 18 years and 2 spaces per home with
street parking or 4 spaces younger per home without street parking plus 1 space per each eight beds Retail or wholesale principally oflarge items such 1 space per 300 square feet of
floor area as furniture, ]ar~e appliances, floor cDverinR". etc. Retail, office and service establishments 1 space per 200 square feet of first floor area plus 1 space per 300 square
feet for all floors other than first floor Sale pr rental of new and used cars, mobile 1 space per 1,000 square feet oflot area plus 1 homes, portable buildings, recreational vehicles,
space per employee on maximum shift campers and boats Tennis and racquetball courts or otber court 2 spaces per court plus 1 space per employee on games maximum shift Theaters 1 space
per each 3 seats plus 1 space per employee on maximum shift Unified shopping centers of 100,000 square feet 1 space per each 250 square feet gross leasable or larger area Veterinary
offices and clinics; and radio and TV 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area studios; and financial institutions Notes. (1) Wherever the word "person," "student" or "employee" js
used as a unit of measure, the requirement shall be based upon the maximum designed use or occupant capacity. (2) For operations which contain more than one (1) use category (e.g. motel/restaurant),
the director of community development shall require parking computed by using the "mixed occupancy" provisions; however, the director may allow for up to fifty (50) percent reductions
in parking for secondary uses where itis clearly shown that maximum parking demand peaks will not coincide. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1,2-26-01; Ord. No. 1288, §§ I, 2, 5-12-03; Ord. No.
1348, § 2, 7-11-05) Sec. 26-502. Landscaping requirements. A. Landscaping defin.ed: A combination of living plants, such as trees, shrubs, vines, groundcover, flowers, sod or grass;
and may include natural features, such as rock~ stone and bark; and structural features, including, but not limited to, fountains, reflecting pools, art work, screen walls, fences and
benches. Uncontrolled weeds shall not be considered as landscaping; however, maintained natural grasses and natural flowers may be considered as landscaping. Supp. No. 35 1807 I I I
i
ZON[NG AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-621 Sec. 26-621. Residential parking. A. In residentia1 zone districts, the parking of trucks, vans, buses or licensed trailers which are used for commercial
purposes, whether the commercial enterprise is conducted from the home or conducted elsewhere, is prohibited except as permitted by this section. An occupant of a dwelling may park,
or allow the parking of, no more than one (1) truck or van which is used for commercial purposes upon the premises or confmed to the street frontage of the lot in question; provided,
however, that such vehicle does not exceed a one-ton chassis. Parking of trailers which are used for commercial purposes is prohibited on any public right-of-way. B. [n residential zone
districts, a maximum of two (2) of any the following vehicles may be parked outside upon property owned or rented by the vehicle owner, provided the vehicle owner resides on the property:
• Recreational vehicle • Trailer upon which are stored personal recreational vehicles Recreational vehicles or trailers are exempt from this two-vehicle limitation provided the vehicles
or trailers are stored in the area between the side property line and the side wall of the structure and the back property line and tbe back wall of the structure, provided both of the
following are met: • The vehicles or trailers are less than six (6) feet in height, and • The vehicles or trailers are not visible from the public right-of-way as a result of being stored
behind a solid fence six (6) feet in height, a structure, or vegetation which completely screens the vehicle from view from the public right-of-way. In determining if a trailer is exempt
or not exempt from the provisions of this subsection B. the beight of the trailer will depend upon whether the trailer is loaded or not. A trailer that is exempt in an unloaded condition
shall not be considered exempt in a loaded condition ifthe trailer plus load exceeds six (6) feet in height. C. Only one 0) such recreational vehicle or trailer may be stored in the
area between the street and all walls of the structure facing the street. Such vehicles or trailers must be parked six (6) feet or more inside the front property line. For corner lots,
the one (1) vehicle rest.riction sball apply to both areas between the street and the walls of the structure facing the street. Any vehicle or trailer lying partially hetween the street
and the front walls of the structure shall he considered to he parked or stored in the front yard. Where it is difficult to determine the public right-of-way boundary due to lack of
curb, gutter andlor sidewalk, or survey markers, such boundaries shall be presumed to be ten (10) feet from the edge of pavement or back of curb. Where a sidewalk exists, such boundaries
sball be presumed to be two (2) feet from the outside edge of sidewalk. For the purposes of this subsection C, permanent or temporary carports, frame covered structures, tents, or other
temporary structures shall not be used to store or conceal such recreational vehicles or trailers in excess of the maximum nwnber permitted. D. Recreational vehicles or trailers stored
in a side yard need not meet any setback requirements. Recreational vehicles or trailers exceeding six (6) feet in height stored in a back yard must meet the side and rear yard setback
requirements for accessory structures for the zone district in which the recreational vehicle or trailer is stored. Recreational vehicles and trailers less than six (6) feet in height
stored in a back yard do not need to meet rear and side yard setbacks. E. In residential zone districts, detached trailers and recreational vehicles are prohibited from parking in public
rights-of-way; however one (1) recreational vehicle or one (1) trailer may be parked within public street rights-oE-way for a period up to seventy-two (72) hours, provided they are attached
to the towing vehicle. Moving the towing vehicle andlor the trailer to another location in the right-of-way does not extend or restart the seventy-twa-hour
period. Supp. No. 33 1835 ATTACHMENT 3
3 § 26·621 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE F. In residential zone districts, where it is desired to maintain such a restricted vehicle either within six (6) feet of a public street on private
property or within a lawful parking area on a public street abutting the front of the property in excess of seventy·two (72) hours, the property owner may obtain a temporary parking
permit from the planning and development department. Such temporary parking permit shall be for a time period not to exceed fourteen (14) days and no more than one (1) such permit shall
be issued each six (6) months for the same vehicle. The issuance of a temporary permit is for the purpose of parking only and not for aoy other activity. The permit must be placed upon
the inside windshield or side window on the driver's side so as to be visible for inspection. G. Pickup truck· mounted campers, when mounted upon pickup trucks, are not subject to these
parking restrictions except that such camper shall not be used for permanent or temporary living quarters. Nothing in this section will be construed to restrict or limit parking of any
vehicle so described upon private property so long as said vehicle is parked in accordance with the limitations of this section and provided that sight distance triangle requirements
of section 26·603 are met. H. Areas which are used to store or park allowed recreational vehicles or trailers shall be of an improved surface consisting of concrete, asphalt, brick pavers,
gravel at least six (6) incbes in depth, or similar materials. If gravel is used, the parking or storage area must be built to that the material used for surfacing stays contained with
the storage or parking area with the use of concrete curbs, railroad ties, landscape timbers, or similar materials. I. The storage of recreational vehicles or trailers is permitted upon
multi·family residential properties where the owner of the vehicle resides upon the premises, and where such vehicle or vehicles do not displace parking spaces required to meet the minimum
vehicular parking requirement for the property as set forth herein for multifamily residential land uses. J. Any vehicle or trailer owner may apply for a variance to the restrictions
contained in subsections B, C, and D in accordance with the procedures for requesting a minor variance as provided in subsection 26·115 C 1 of this Code, whether or not the requested
variance is within the ten (10) percent limitation. Should objections be received from the adjacent property owners, the community development director shall schedule the request for
a public hearing before the board of adjustment according to the noticing procedures contained in subsections 26·109 B, C and D. Requests for variances under this subsection J shall
not be charged a fee if the request is filed by December 31,2004. Any variance granted by either the community development director or the board of adjustment shall be a grant of the
variance to the property owner only. <Ord. No. 2001-1216, § 1,2·26·01; Ord. No. 1265, § 2, 9·23-02; Ord. No. 1271, § § 2,12·10·02; Ord. No. 1288, §§ 1,2,5·12·03; Ord. No. 1318, § 1,3-22·04)
Sec. 26·622. Parking for the principal purpose of sale. A. For purposes of this section, "vehicle" shall include motor vehicles, motor homes, travel trailers and mobile homes. B. No
person shall park any vehicle for the principal purpose of selling such vehicle on a public roadway, on public property or any other property not zoned residentiaL C. Vehicles considered
to be parked for the principal purpose of sale on any private driveway or private property may be reported by tbe owner or manager of such property to the community development department
for issuance of an appropriate citation. Supp. No. 33 1836 I i.
1
2
3
4
5
STAFF REPORT A ..... 4 ~ ~ _ ~ City of • ~~Wheat&"'dge ~DMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager J)j THROUGH: FROM: Kathy Franklin,
Senior Tax Auditor DATE: June 19,2009 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 11-22 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, Concerning Conducting Business in the City without a Valid Business
License Executive Summary Under current conditions, the City has "no teeth" so to speak, with which to enforce its business and tax licensing requirements because the municipal prosecutor
and judge are uncomfortable that the language of Section 22-46 (remedies available to the City) addresses tax violations, not licensing, although it was referenced in Section II, of
the Licensing Code, as the remedy for violations of said section. The parties also deemed that Section l-S ($1 ,000 daily fine for any code violation) was not applicable in enforcing
licensing. Background All business activities in the City must be licensed according to Section 11-22 of the Code. Licensing costs $S to apply and $20 annually, with expiration on December
31 st of each year and a grace period until January 31 st of the following year. Renewal notification is provided yearly in the autumn-issued Tax Reporter, reminding of the requirement
deadline and $SO penalty fee . Additionally, notification is now also provided on line 13A of the December return, due in January, with the fee pre-printed. Unlicensed vendors are contacted
to become licensed without penalty within ten to fifteen days as they become known to staff. Oftentimes licensees do not renew in a timely manner, and occasionally an unlicensed business
will ignore licensing notices. The Tax Division follows the same process for all: a late licensinglrenewalletter is sent, providing additional time to pay the licensing or renewal and
late payment fees. If no response is tendered, a desk citation is issued requiring the responsible party to appear in the tax office to pay the fees, with a boldly-lettered warning that
ignoring it will result in a summons to court. Historically, when a failure to license or renewal summons is issued, it cites Code Section 22-4, and with the most flagrant offenders,
Section l-S. As an improved tax and licensing software permitted better vigilance over the license renewal process in 2009, the number of non-renewal cases hit a record high of twenty-two.
Additionally, two businesses operating for a number of years in the same location ignored multiple written,
Ordinance Amending Section 11-22 -Staff Report A June 19,2009 Page 2 phone and personal contacts about licensing so was notified of impending summonses applying the maximum fines mentioned
above. The Court indicated it wanted to reject all the cases because of the loose association between the Licensing Code and the cited remedial Codes. However, a one-time compromise
was reached and those appearing for Court were simply directed to the Tax Office to renew their licenses. Statement of the Issues The City must have a mechanism to support enforcement
of its dual business and tax licensing requirement. Initial licensing is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the City's Zoning and Building Code. It is also critical to revenue collection
and monitoring efforts. Renewal serves to stimulate account informational updates for collection, enforcement and usage monitoring. Staff appreciates the Court's and prosecution's issues
with the specific language of Section 22-46, and respects their concern for lack of a specific reference in Section II to Section 1-5 as a punitive measure for non-compliance with licensing
requirements. Alternative Considered The alternative to amending the Code to succinctly provide enforceability of the licensing requirements is to simply do nothing and to not enforce
compliance. Recommendation Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to Section 11-22 of the Code be brought forward to a City Council meeting for adoption. Attachments: Ordinance
Amending Section 11-22 of the Code Ikf.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ___ _ Council Bill No. __ _ Ordinance No. ___ _ Series 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-22 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE
OF LAWS CONCERNING CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY WITHOUT A VALID BUSINESS LICENSE WHEREAS, the City Council ("Council") of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado ("City") has authority
to enact ordinances for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, exercising this authority, the Council has previously enacted Chapter 11 , Article II, Section
11-22 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws ( "Code") concerning conducting business within the City without a valid business license; and WHEREAS, licensing businesses conducting business
within the City is necessary to allow the City to keep records of tax which may be owed, as well as generally keep records of the businesses operating in the City; and WHEREAS, the Council
wishes to amend Section 11-22 of the Code to clarify that conducting business within the City City without a valid business license is a violation of the Code, generally, and may be
punishable as set forth in Chapter 1 of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Council believes that such clarification will aid in the prosecution of business owners who fail to obtain a license
prior to conducting business in the City. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 11-22 is amended to read as follows:
It shall be a violation of the City Code to conduct business within the city without a valid business license unless specifically exempted from the provision of this article. A BUSINESS
LICENSE SHALL BE CONSIDERED VALID IF IT IS CURRENT AND COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 1-5
AND 1-6 OF THE CITY CODE. Each day that a business is conducted in violation of the City Code shall be a separate offense. f'.RY violatioR of this article shall Be sUBject to aRY of
the remedies as provided By sectioR 22 4€l of this Code of Laws.
Section 2. Severability. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity
of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby
repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED
on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this __ day of , 2009, 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 , 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 2009. SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2009. ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date: Jerry DiTullio, Mayor Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
.. STAFF REPORT B , -' ~ City of Ar?" Wheat &....dge ~ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager..oJFROM: Kathy Franklin,
Senior Tax Auditor DATE: June 19, 2009 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 11-22, Concerning Requirement of a License to Collect Sales and Use Taxes Executive Summary While the City
Code requires a license to do business in the city, there is no such requirement to collect the sales and use tax that is outlined in the Code. As a result, out-of-town business owners
are collecting money from the citizens of Wheat Ridge with no accountability. Background Numerous out-of-town businesses collect the City sales tax anonymously and remit it via a miscellaneous
sales tax return. Such companies are not required to collect the City tax because they are not truly engaged in business in the City. They do so because it is a built-in function of
their billing system, or because they wish to help their small, independent direct marketers avoid filing and paying the tax individually. This practice is acceptable in the metro area
as a matter of practicality. Statement of the Issues Miscellaneous filing is intended as a mechanism for one-time filing of tax collected in a city by a business not normally making
sales in the city, or by a temporary licensee. This practice has evolved into a loophole utilized by businesses that either can't or won't stop taking possession of city monies, and
wish to remain out of the city 's line of administrative oversight as much as possible. The problem in this situation is that the City has only a small chance of knowing who is collecting
the tax and of having an expectation of receiving it. Additionally, there is less chance of awareness to audit to ensure complete remittance of taxes collected in the city. Although
some remitter information is available on the return or payment, it's often incomplete and the extra steps required in recording and capturing names, determining addresses, amounts,
and frequency of filing after the fact is an additional drain on resources. Another source of discovery is audit of licensed businesses, but those companies dealing with individuals
are usually impossible to locate.
Ordinance Amending Section 11-22 -Staff Report B June 19,2009 Page 2 Some of the businesses who use the miscellaneous filing will license if contacted. However, a number of them either
ignore the contact or outright refuse because nothing in our law requires a license in order to collect the tax and there is nothing the city can do about it under the law as it currently
stands. Alternative Considered Continue with the status quo and loss of fees. Recommended Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, which would require business to pay sales and use
tax according to Chapter 22, Sections 22-20-21. Attachment: Ordinance to Amend Section 11-22 concerning the requirement ofa license to collect sales and use tax Ikf
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ___ _ Council Bill No. __ _ Ordinance No. ___ _ Series 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE I OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE TO COLLECT SALES AND/OR USE TAX WHEREAS, the City Council ("Council") of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado ("City") has previously
enacted Chapter 22, Article I of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge ("Code") concerning sales and use tax and collection of the same; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11 , Section 11-22
requires a business license to conduct business in the City; however, Chapter 22 does not explicitly require a license to collect sales and/or use tax in the City; and WHEREAS, Section
22-21 defines "License" to mean, "A city sales and use tax license and/or general business license"; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify Chapter 22 with the addition of a new
Section 22-20, previously reserved, which shall require a license in order to collect sales and/or or use tax pursuant to Chapter 22. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Chapter 22, Article I, Section 22-20 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, previously reserved, is hereby titled, "License
required to collect tax." Section 22-20 shall read as follows: (a) A license, as defined in Sec. 22-21 of this Article I, shall be required to collect sales tax pursuant to Sec. 22-56
and/or use tax pursuant to Sec. 22-66. It shall be a violation of this Chapter to collect sales and/or use tax without having obtained the appropriate license. (b) Such license shall
be in addition to any other applicable license required pursuant to this Code. Section 2. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, sUbsection or clause of this
Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall
not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance
shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this __
day of , 2009, 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 , 2009 at 7:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to _, this day of , 2009.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2009. ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney