Woodland Park work session adds water-availability review language to subdivision and zoning rules

City of Woodland Park staff presented draft amendments to Titles 17 and 18 of the municipal code that would require applicants to demonstrate water availability for new lots, subdivisions, zoning changes and other permit-dependent uses.

The draft inserts a recurring criterion into preliminary- and final-plat review, zone-change and planned-unit-development (PUD) processes, and into site-plan and conditional-use reviews: applicants must submit “detailed, verifiable and authenticated documentation” showing adequate water supply, wastewater disposal and related utilities to serve proposed lots, uses or structures. Staff described the provision as an interim tool while the city develops a formal water-availability study and supporting metrics.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the amendment as a way to ensure water availability becomes a routine and explicit step in land-use approvals rather than an ad hoc check. Commissioners and staff also discussed how water is allocated in practice — taps, fixture counts and utility procedures — and how the city will balance administrative review against final approval authority.

What staff explained and commissioners asked: - Purpose and scope: staff said the language is designed to bridge the gap while the city develops a fuller technical study and that the new requirement is intended as a routine submittal item for plats, PUDs, zone changes and site plans. The draft does not prescribe a detailed engineering methodology at this time but asks for documentation that utilities can verify. - “Detailed, verifiable and authenticated”: Commissioners sought a clearer definition of those terms and asked whether the city should require a named “water availability study” or a form approved by the utilities director. Staff recommended leaving the ordinance language general enough to give the utilities department flexibility, then issuing submittal guidance and a standard form (or study template) to applicants. - Approval authority: commissioners asked whether the utilities director’s signoff would equate to final approval. Staff and the utilities director clarified that the utilities review is an advisory/technical determination; approvals that legally require council action (for example zone changes or plats) will still be decided by the city’s established approval body, with the utilities review included in the record. - Implementation steps: staff said the utility department already maintains baseline analyses (tap availability and fixture counts) and that the proposed language would require applicants to demonstrate how much water their project would consume and to provide documentation the utility can authenticate. Commissioners asked staff to draft a formal “water availability study” template or checklist for applicants and to confirm which administrative reviews require utilities review versus council action.

Next steps: staff said the draft amendments will be renumbered and refined and that the utilities director (Kip) will be included in the public-hearing record. Planning staff requested feedback on whether to use an ordinance-level definition (a named study) or to keep the ordinance text general and publish an administrative form. Commissioners generally supported giving the utilities department the authority to specify the form of proof and directed staff to return a version that explicitly calls out the study or form that applicants should submit.