Staff Report
PC Hearing Date:
August 12, 2015
BCC Hearing Date:
September 1, 2015
12-112380AM
Regulation Amendments
Owner/Applicant:
Jefferson County
Purpose:
Amendment to the Transportation and Ancillary Regulations




Case Manager:
Transportation Design and Construction Manual (in its entirety)
Land Development Regulation (Sections 4, 8, 15, 16 and 33)
Zoning Resolution (Sections 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 30 and Definitions)
Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria (Sections 10 and 11)
Charlie Barthel
Background
The draft Amendment to the Transportation and Ancillary Regulations was developed by a “core
team” that consisted of select staff from Planning and Zoning, Transportation and Engineering,
Road and Bridge, Fire Protection Districts, Public Health and Open Space. The impetus of
updating the regulations was primarily predicated on recently adopted Major Thoroughfare and
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans and conforming to County adopted Fire Codes. It was determined
at the onset of this process that a Board Briefing was not required and that Staff was permitted to
proceed with preparing draft regulations for review and approval at scheduled public hearings.
There were two incremental briefings presented to management as to progress and proposed
regulation changes and to seek guidance and approval to proceed. The first briefing covered the
concept and the regulations that warranted revisions. The second briefing covered the proposed
regulation changes and scope.
The scope of the proposed regulation changes entailed the Transportation Design and
Construction Manual in its entirety and select sections of the Land Development Regulation,
Zoning Resolution and Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria. In addition, changes were
recommended to the County Policies and Procedures in association with the regulations update.
The proposed changes to the Policies and Procedures are processed concurrently and
separately by the Assistant County Manager and only warrant Board action.
The proposed draft regulations were sent out on three separate referrals to internal reviewing
agencies (Planning and Zoning, Transportation and Engineering, Road and Bridge, Open Space,
Airport, Public Health and Building Safety Division) and to external reviewing agencies
(Regulation Review Group, Special Districts and designated Stakeholders).
The proposed
regulation changes were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office. At the request of the
Planning Commission, a list of consultants and engineering firms that were given an opportunity
during the referral process to respond is attached. In addition to receiving and addressing
comments from internal reviewing agencies during the referral process, Staff also received
comments from external reviewing agencies. The summary of external agencies’ comments and
staff’s corresponding response/action during the referral process is listed below.
Comment Summary
I have a question about the attached P&Z diagram about
vision clearance triangles.(Copied it
from the County's website this a.m.) Is the 42" height to be
measured upward from the
adjacent pavement surface ? Or is it just the height of the
object?
The ground elevation that the object is most likely on will
be higher than the street, sometimes
quite a lot higher than the street, so where you measure
from could make a significant
difference in what would be blocked by the item.
Specifically regarding LDR Section 4, Submittal
Requirements, #22: Transportation Information
It currently reads that he Case Manager can require “A”
documentation can be required by the Case
Manager based on the specific circumstances of an
application.
I would like to recommend that this not be left up to the
case manager and that it be required in the
process of the submittal of the Preliminary Plat, so that it
does not get overlooked in some cases.
Requiring this would make less likely those cases,
particularly where an existing driveway or private
roadway is overlooked or if you will, grandfathered when a
new structure, property subdivision or use is
being proposed.
22. Transportation Information A A A A A A A
Staff Response/Action
The determination of 42” height has been addressed in the
revised Vision Clearance Triangle provision of the MANUAL.
No action taken. Clarified that Transportation Information is not
needed in most instances for small subdivisions and that it does
not apply to driveways. Land disturbance permits at the time of
building permit, which do address access, are required for
platted lots and metes and bounds parcels.
I have received the notice of the latest draft of
proposed regulatory changes.There are too many
pages for me to digest all at once, so this letter will
contain brief comments concerning the most
obvious items that I noticed.
1) Change in cul-de-sac length and number of units:
This revision (LOR Section 15,item A.1.c) proposes
to reduce the maximum length of a cul-de-sac in
the plains area to only 750 feet, and to reduce
the number of dwelling units allowed on a cul-desac in all areas to 30. Both of these numbers
appear to be arbitrary.The current standards of 1
mile and 35 units are not perfect, but at least they
are well established, and I am not aware that they
have caused any problems. The stated alternative
is to obtain approval from the Fire District. Ido not
think that the County should be differing land use
standards to a District; the District can impose its
own restrictions. If there is a compelling reason to
revise the current limitations, a better approach
would be to comprehensively evaluate all
pertinent aspects of a proposed cul-de-sac,
including public or private maintenance, the
condition of the roadway, the fire risk of the terrain
and vegetation surrounding the road, proximity to
fire stations, availability of water for fire protection,
road design, etc. Certainly some roads could
safely contain more units than others.
It would also be helpful to solve the recurring
problem that the regulation does not recognize
the difference between single family units and
multi-family units. The difficulty here is that even
one multi-family building with more than 35
units does not comply with the regulation.
2) Expansion of cul-de-sac bulb:
The draft (Roadway Design and Construction
Manual template 14) proposes to expand the
diameter of the "bulb" turn around area up to as
large as 96 feet. This huge paved area would be a
terrible waste of land, create excessive paved
area and runoff, and be a visual blight.
3) Bike lanes on Arterial Streets:
The draft (Roadway Design and Construction
Manual templates 1 and 2) proposes to require
four foot wide bike lanes on Arterial Streets.
While I am a fan of making accommodations
for bicycles, it seems to me that a narrow
bike lane on a high volume, relatively high
speed arterial street would be dangerous, and a
frightening and unpleasant place to ride. The
required eight foot wide detached walk seems like
a much safer place for bicyclists.
The cul-de-sac provision was changed back to 1 mile in length.
The proposed cul-de-sac provision now allows up to 100 multifamily units. The residential units were reduced from 35 to 30.
These unit numbers were extrapolated from Appendix D of the
2012 International Fire Code (not adopted by the County). As
proposed, the Fire Protection Districts can approve an alternate
standard for cul-de-sacs based on specific site conditions that
provide acceptable fire and safety mitigation measures for
access and water. This proposed revision does not preclude the
developer from seeking relief pursuant to the Alternative
Standards/Requirements Section of the Land Development
Regulation.
The sizes of the proposed turnarounds are based primarily on
Fire Protection District apparatus turning radius, unobstructed
access and load bearing capacity. The revised turnaround
templates allow for various size cul-de-sacs based on an
emergency access connection and parking restrictions.
The biking community wanted bicycle lanes or separate paved
shoulders for arterials and major collectors. For other bicyclists,
the 8’ wide detached sidewalk can be used by bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide
feedback on the proposed regulation changes. I see
that the GP or NOI threshold has been changed to just
5000 sf of land disturbance instead of the usual
10,000 sf and 300 CY. I think that is a good move, it allows
small disturbances like soil stockpiles and
temporary excavations to not require grading permits, but
covers most residential development.
As far as reducing the natural slope threshold for NOI
applicable criteria to 15% from the current
25%,that is a big increment jump, which will essentially
require almost all land disturbances in the
mountain areas to prepare full Grading Permit submittals
and the associated accouterments like the
performance guarantees, larger review fee and
construction permit fee. I just wanted to comment that
many years ago I was under the impression the NOI
process was originally developed to ease the
burden of smaller projects. As an engineer in the Grading
Permit business, we get to see both sides of
the issues when it comes to private citizens, builders,
home owners, etc. so I just wanted to provide
some feedback regarding some of the observations I've
noted with applicants and the grading permit
process over the years.
I think that the extra financial requirements of having to
prepare a FULL GP versus an NOI will detract
resources from the applicants in complying with the
physical implementation of the necessary BMPs,
etc. Typically, when applicants are notified that they will
have to post a guarantee based on an Exhibit
A, they will grumble that they have to also pay the
contractor to do the work, and by the time house
construction costs start to pile up, sometimes balk at
leaving cash with the County. I think it would
serve in everybody’s best interest to have the
approximately extra $1000 to $1500 (in extra engineering
and permit fees) being applied to the installation of erosion
control measures. The risk of course is that
some individuals will be tempted to circumvent the permit
process, thus resulting and producing more
violations and consequently unchecked or poorly planned
land disturbances. So, I would tentatively
suggest, as a compromise, that the NOI natural grade
threshold be at 20%, providing a little leeway so
that NOT 98% of mountain area land disturbance permits
will require full grading permits with the
additional burden of performance guarantees, etc., but still
require a standard NOI land disturbance
permit. I may not know the full reason of the proposed
slope criteria change, but that's my 2 cents
opinion.
The rest of the LDR and ZR proposed changes I've looked
at and it appears the Division has been fine
Seems like the County has put a lot of time into their
document review. I'll try and check out some of the other
pertinent docs too. So, it seems that all properties now will
require either an NOI or Grading permit, i.e. no hall
pass for small disturbances. But pretty much everything in
the mountain area of Jeffco (or
about 95%), will require a grading permit due to the
sensitive area slope change down to
15%?
Can you clarify C.1.a.7 if drainage reports are being
desired for all new residential
construction, or if drainage waivers would still be accepted
if the increased flows are less
than trigger amount?
For sensitive areas, the proposed threshold for existing grades
of 15% was revised upward to 20%. NOI’s processed in the
Mountains differ considerably from those processed in the
Plains. For development in the Mountains, the existing grade
and topography requires more in-depth analysis for drainage,
grading, slope stability, erosion and sediment control.
Revised sensitive area slope upward to 20%. Deleted proposed
provision for new construction requiring an NOI. Applicants may
request relief from our regulations, including drainage, with
concomitant justification and rationale for consideration.
Discussion/Proposal
Staff proposes to amend the Transportation and Ancillary Regulations in such a manner that
throughput for traffic is no longer the primary consideration; rather, roadway together with
pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation are integrated into a unified transportation system
that conforms to adopted County Codes and Plans and State and Federal Regulations.
The major components of the regulation revisions include:
1. Integrate roadway, pedestrian and bicycle circulation as a unified transportation
system.
The Roadway Design and Construction Manual was renamed to Transportation Design
and Construction Manual. Traffic Studies in the regulations were changed to
Transportation Studies, which include requirements to provide recommendations for
bicycle and pedestrian improvements for developments. The General Provisions of the
Transportation Design and Construction Manual (hereinafter referred to as the
MANUAL) were revised to reflect trails and multi-modal facilities. The Transportation
Impact Study that is currently posted on the Transportation and Engineering website
was modified (now named Transportation Studies) to include pedestrian and bicycle
transportation modes and incorporated as an Appendix into the Transportation Design
and Construction Manual. In keeping with the multi-modal transportation precept, the
construction standards for Trails were relocated from the Land Development Regulation
into the MANUAL. The Trails Section portion for planning standards remained in the
Land Development Regulation. To enhance pedestrian access, the minimum width of
sidewalks was increased from 4 feet to 5 feet.
2.
Conform to adopted Fire Access Code.
Requirements in the County adopted Section 503, Fire Apparatus Access Roads, 2012
International Fire Code, authorize the Fire Protection Districts to have purview on 20’ of
unobstructed fire apparatus access including turning radius, turnarounds, travelled
surface, secondary access, traffic calming devices, gates, grade, bridges and signage.
Since access for emergency responders and safety for property owners are critical
elements in the revised regulations, all of the Code requirements were taken into
account by Staff. Where the Code could not be met due to site condition constraints
(primarily in the mountains) and practical considerations (widths of residential
driveways), Staff in mutual cooperation with the Fire Protection Districts developed
updated Standard Templates in the Manual and revised provisions/requirements for
driveways, private roads and private/public turnarounds.
Of particular interest, the cul-de-sac provision in the Land Development Regulation was
revised to address multi-family development and to allow the Fire Protection Districts to
approve alternate standards. The approval of alternate standards for cul-de-sacs is
predicated on specific site conditions together with providing acceptable fire and safety
mitigation measures for water and access. The cul-de-sac provision as written allows a
cul-de-sac that serves no more than 35 residential units and does not exceed 1 mile in
length. Of note, Staff is proposing that the residential units be reduced to 30 residential
units and the allowable multifamily density be set at 100 multi-family units. These
proposed changes in the numbers for units are not arbitrary and do hail from Appendix
D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads of the 2012 International Fire Code albeit said
Appendix D has not been adopted by the County. To date, several Fire Protection
Districts have adopted Appendix D. Notwithstanding, this proposed provision does not
preclude the developer from requesting relief from this provision pursuant to the
Alternative Standards/Requirements Section of the Land Development Regulation.
3.
Conform to adopted County Major Thoroughfare and Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plans.
The MANUAL, the Land Development Regulation, the Zoning Resolution and the Storm
Drainage Design and Technical Criteria have been revised to incorporate the adopted
Major Thoroughfare and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans. The Standard Templates in the
MANUAL were revised to include the major collector street and road templates in
accordance with the adopted Major Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, the Standard
Templates and Functional Classifications were revised to conform to the adopted
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Pertinent sections in the Zoning Resolution, Land
Development Regulation and Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria were also
revised in synchrony with the MANUAL.
Of note, arterials and major collectors where designated on the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Plan include a bicycle lane or paved shoulder to accommodate bicycles. The biking
community is desirous of having a separate designated bicycle lane or paved shoulder
on high traffic volume streets and roads. For other bicyclists, the 8’ wide detached
sidewalk that’s required with arterials and major collector streets accommodates both
pedestrians and bicyclists.
4. Conform to State and Federal Regulations.
General Provisions were updated to explicitly state that the provisions of the MANUAL
shall apply except where superseded by State or Federal regulations. The Purpose and
Effect provision of the General Provisions was revised to specifically cite other criteria
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “A
Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, CDOT Design Standards and
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)) for transportation system analysis
and transportation system design not specifically addressed in the MANUAL. In the
MANUAL, proposed provisions explicitly state that design and construction of
roundabouts, bridges, curb extensions and curb ramps shall conform to specifically cited
State or Federal regulations, as applicable.
5. Simplify, clarify and deconflict provisions and requirements.
There are many instances of proposed changes to the regulations in which provisions
and requirements were simplified, clarified and deconflicted. The following are some of
the more noteworthy changes to the regulations.
Several of the charts and illustrations for turning lanes and storage in the MANUAL were
eliminated and replaced with simple verbiage referring to a transportation analysis or
study to obtain the necessary information or written provisions. Construction Standards
in the MANUAL for curb ramps were eliminated and simple reference was made to
CDOT Design Standards. Construction Standards for signalization was eliminated and
covered by reference to MUTCD in the General Provisions Section of the MANUAL.
The Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria was revised to clarify and deconflict the
requisite design criteria for culverts in drainageways and cross culverts in streets and
roads and driveway culverts associated with street/road ditches.
Provisions in the Land Disturbance and the Floodplain Overlay Districts Sections were
revised to simplify and clarify the processes. Currently in the Land Disturbance Section,
disturbed land which entails 300 cubic yards cut and fill or more requires the applicant to
obtain a Land Disturbance Permit, at a minimum a Notice of Intent (NOI). At best, this
requirement was difficult to administer and enforce. The 300 cubic yards cut and fill was
replaced with 5,000 square feet of land disturbance. This proposed change is in
keeping with NOI’s being currently administered with the provision that requires
mandatory processing of NOI’s of small lots associated with approved lot grading and
erosion control plans with plats; to keep it simple, this provision was revised to eliminate
the “grandfathered” recordation date for platted lots. The intent is to minimize adverse
impact to other built-out lots in a subdivision and make it straight forward in
administering and enforcing the permit process.
The maintenance and fence provisions were revised in the Floodplain Overlay District
Section of the Zoning Resolution. The maintenance provision as currently written is
vague; the proposed provision clearly defines maintenance as the removal of sediment
and the like from drainage structures. The maintenance provision allows the property
owner to perform routine maintenance in a zoned floodplain without the requirement to
obtain a floodplain permit. The administration of floodplain permits for fences is
problematic; the current provision is confusing and is not practical, and does not allow
fences of any kind in the floodway. The revised fence provisions have been simplified
as follows: allow open fences in the floodplain without a floodplain study; chain link and
barb wire fences are not permitted in the floodplain; a solid fence is not permitted in the
floodway and a solid fence not in the floodway will require a Floodplain Study.
The list below identifies the specific sections of the regulations that are proposed to be amended,
and provides a short description of the changes proposed within each section:

Jefferson County Transportation (renamed) Design and Construction Manual, in its
entirety
 Chapter 1 – General Provisions: Update and Clarification; Added Trails
 Chapter 2 - Construction drawing requirements: Transition to electronic
document submittals; Revised plan requirements (Trails and Major Collector);
relocated Striping and Signing Plan elsewhere in the Manual; Housekeeping and
update
 Chapter 3 – Design and Technical Criteria: Updated, simplified and clarified;
Included Bicycle lane criteria; Added major collector criteria; Revised street/road
template standard provisions; Eliminated illustrative graphs/charts that are
confusing; Updated vision clearance triangle criteria; Addressed County
adopted fire access code; Inserted signing and striping plan requirements;
Added construction criteria for trails; Included re-direct taper
 Chapter 4 – Pavement Design and Technical Criteria: Updated technical criteria
to align with current practice and standards
 Chapter 5 – Construction Specifications and Standards: Updated and simplified;
Eliminated construction standards for signalization
 Standard Templates – Included major collector templates to align with Major
Thoroughfare Plan; Revised sidewalk width and added bicycle lane provisions;
Revised turnarounds and hammerheads
 Construction Standards – Revised sidewalk details; Revised to reflect regulation
changes elsewhere; Revised road and street name standards; Eliminated
signalization and curb ramp standards
 Added Transportation Studies as an appendix



Jefferson County Land Development Regulation
 Section 4 – Submittal Requirements: Revised to align with regulation changes
elsewhere; Revised road of record provision
 Section 8 – Final Plat: Revised landscaping notes and model home restriction;
Revised surveyor’s certificate for plats
 Section 15 – Circulation: Eliminated unnecessary provisions; Modified cul-desac criteria; Added criteria for traffic calming
 Section 16 – Trails: Eliminated construction criteria; Revised section to reflect
planning standards
 Section 33 – Development Agreements, Warranties and Guarantees: Revised
Cash-in-lieu of construction to reflect more nearly actual cost incurred by T&E;
revised inspection procedures for model homes
Jefferson County Storm Drainage Design & Technical Criteria
 Chapter 10 - Streets/Roads: Included major collector and added driveways
 Chapter 11 – Culverts: Revised culvert sizing criteria
Jefferson County Zoning Resolution,
 Section 1 – Administrative Provisions: Updated to align with regulation changes
elsewhere
 Section 2 – General Provisions and Regulations: Added gate provision;
Eliminated lot area computation and inserted setback criteria instead
 Section 15 – Landscaping: Added a perimeter landscape strip width along a
major collector street/road
 Section 16 – Land Disturbance: Eliminated confusing land disturbance table;
Revised/Simplified criteria for Land Disturbance and reduced thresholds for
permits; added stockpile criteria in performance standards; Revised early
grading approval criteria
 Section 17 – Permanent Stormwater Quality Structure Maintenance: Revised
inspection procedures
 Section 30 – Flood Plain Overlay District: Revised criteria for fences within the
floodway; added criteria for guardrails in public right-of-way within the floodplain;
revised post construction certification
 Definitions – Vision Clearance Triangle: Revised definition to reference
Transportation Design and Construction Manual
Notification
Newspaper notification of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
hearings was published in the Arvada/Westminster, Lakewood, Ken Caryl and Golden/Foothills
branches of Your Hub. Notification of the hearings was also sent to every city/town in the County,
adjacent counties, registered HOA’s with the County, Special Districts, Regulation Review Group,
Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Department of Transportation and designated
Stakeholders.
A draft version of the regulation revisions and a brief narrative of the proposed changes for the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners hearings have been posted on the
“Planning & Zoning Active Cases Web Page”.
Attachments
The documents listed below are attached to this Staff Report and identify the specific changes to
the regulations that are being proposed by Staff.
Transportation Design and Construction Manual (renamed, currently known as Roadway Design
and Construction Manual)
 Chapter 1 – General Provisions








Chapter 2 – Construction Drawing Requirements
Chapter 3 – Design and Technical Criteria
Chapter 4 – Pavement Design and Technical Criteria
Chapter 5 – Construction Specifications and Standards
Definitions
Standard Templates
Construction Standards
Transportation Studies (added)
Land Development Regulation
 Section 4 – Submittal Requirements
 Section 8 – Final Plat
 Section 15 – Circulation
 Section 16 – Trails
 Section 33 – Development Agreements, Warranties and
Guarantees
Zoning Resolution
 Section 1 – Administrative Provisions
 Section 2 – General Provisions and Regulations
 Section 15 – Landscaping
 Section 16 – Land Disturbance
 Section 17 – Permanent Stormwater Quality Structure
Maintenance
 Section 30 – Floodplain Overlay District
 Definitions
Storm Drainage
 Chapter 10 – Streets/Roads
 Chapter 11 – Culverts
Correspondence from external review entities during the referral process, list of external
engineers/consultants during the referral process, adopted Major Thoroughfare and Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plans, Adopted Section 503, Fire Apparatus Access Roads of the 2012 International
Fire Code and Appendix D (not adopted by the County), Fire Apparatus Access Roads of the
2012 International Fire Code are also attached.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission Recommendation (Resolution Dated August 12, 2015 attached):
Approval:
Approval with Conditions:
Denial:
X (5-0) vote
Staff gave a brief presentation on the purpose and intent of the case. There was no public
testimony. Fire District Marshalls did attend the hearing in support of the proposed amendments.
Staff recommended that the requirement for street lighting at all major collector street/road
intersections be added to the proposed amendments; the Planning Commission concurred.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that the revisions to
the Transportation Design and Construction Manual, Land Development Regulation,
Zoning Resolution and Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria:
1.
Establish clear, concise and comprehensive documents that meet the needs of
our community today.
2.
Ensure consistency with current County regulations, State statutes and
applicable Federal standards.
3.
Are in the best interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the residents
of Jefferson County.
And;
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE Case No. 12112380AM subject to the following condition:
1. Revisions to the Transportation Design and Construction Manual, Land
Development Regulation, Zoning Resolution and Storm Drainage Design and
Technical Criteria in accordance with the red-marked prints dated September 1,
2015.
And;
Staff further recommends that Planning and Zoning Division staff be given the authority
to revise the Transportation Design and Technical Criteria, Land Development Regulation,
Zoning Resolution and Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria for the limited
purposes of formatting the Regulations and correcting any typographical errors and any
other non-substantive changes to the Regulations that Staff deems necessary prior to final
publication of the Regulations.
COMMENTS PREPARED BY:
Charles J. Barthel, Jr.
___________________________________
Charles J. Barthel, Jr.
Senior Civil Planning Engineer
August 18, 2015