HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/15/2005-RegularFebruary 15, 2005
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 15,
2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and
Weitkunat.
Councilmembers Absent: Bertschy.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
Jan Gulley, Gulley Greenhouse, spoke in opposition to the proposed southwest enclave annexation.
She stated annexation would cost Gulley Greenhouse the following: stormwater costs $18,722 per
year; electrical cost increases of 20% for 10 years amounting to $6,700 per year; City tax on gas and
electric of 3.25% amounting to $6,000.13; property tax increases of at least $3,249 per year. She
stated these costs would total over $34,694 per year, that employee wages might need to be frozen
and that Gulley's full funding of medical insurance employee benefits could be affected.
Audrey Waker stated Mayor Martinez had mentioned a police substation in the area of West
Elizabeth and Constitution Avenue and that she lived at the corner of Constitution and Springfield.
She stated she planned to sell her home and was offering it at the fair market value.
Sandy Robbins spoke regarding the unique nature of the "miscellaneous (undeveloped) area" in
which she lived that was part of the proposed southwest enclave annexation. She stated City
regulations and governmental control would be burdensome for such areas.
Mims Harris expressed concerns about the closing of the human rights office that would result from
the repeal of the grocery tax. She urged voters to vote no on the ballot measure.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, spoke in support of the repeal of the sales tax on food and opposed
the continuation of the vendor fee.
Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle, spoke in opposition to the repeal of the grocery tax. He
stated if the tax was repealed there would be impacts on code compliance and other quality of life
services.
Courtney Stevens, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, spoke in opposition to the "three-
,.n.
February 15, 2005
unrelated" ordinance. She stated the ordinance was "unethical and discriminatory," outdated and
discriminatory and should be removed from the books.
Dr. Reginald Herrin, 415 South Howes, spoke against repeal of the sales tax on groceries. He stated
those with limited incomes were eligible for the sales tax rebate program. He stated Mark Brophy
had sent a letter to the Finance Committee saying that it was illegal for the City to issue Certificates
of Participation in the amount of $50 million for the police and other buildings and open space. He
stated this was not illegal and did not violate TABOR because it was not a tax increase. He stated
a police building would be needed as the City grew. He stated repealing the sales tax on food would
impact services such as libraries, senior center, recreation, etc. He stated City employees had not
had a pay increase in three years and that cutting wages and benefits further would not be fair.
Jan Hampshire, County resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed southwest enclave annexation
due to the costs.
Leo Buccellato, 2238 Iroquois Drive, Fort Collins, commented on the length of the last meeting and
the adjournment of the meeting before the agenda was completed. He stated he waited for five hours
to make a statement to the Council and that the item on which he had intended to speak was not
heard. He asked the Council to complete its agendas.
Rob Stansbury, 1301 Robertson Street, opposed the repeal of the grocery tax and stated quality of
life services would be impacted by the repeal.
John Cockson, 5108 Plateau Court, spoke against the proposed southwest enclave annexation and
addressed the costs to the residents and to the City. He stated there would be REA "pass -on"
charges to the area because it would be a forced annexation.
Diggs Brown, District 3 Council candidate, spoke regarding his experiences in Afghanistan and
stated he looked forward to working with everyone after the election.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Martinez requested that staff follow-up on Mr. Cockson's statements about the REA pass -on
charges. He stated it was sometimes impossible for the Council to complete the agenda and that
meeting management was always a concern to the Council. He stated, in response to Mr. Baccili's
comments, that the base tax rate was higher in those cities that did not have a food sales tax and that
the Council had discussed the vendor fee many times.
Councilmember Tharp stated in response to Mr. Baccili's comments that the City Council could not
use money designated by the voters for open space for anything else.
Councilmember Hamrick thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
Councilmember Roy stated the Campus West police substation was in the conceptual phase.
497
February 15, 2005
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were minor wording changes and clarifications to item #14
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Tharp withdrew item #21 First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2005 Amending
Section 2-31 of the City Code Pertaining to Executive Sessions, Postponed to March 1, 2005 from
the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of the regular Council meeting minutes of January 18 2005
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2005 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2005 Adopted Cite
In 2004 the Natural Areas Fund was created to comply with accounting standards.
Ordinance No. 55, 2004 reallocated funds from the Capital Projects Fund (a non -lapsing
fund) into the Natural Areas Fund (a lapsing fund). The purpose of the previously
appropriated funds remains the same; land conservation, construction of parking lots, fences
and trails, restoration wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the
citizens of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 009, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on February 1, 2005.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer
of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to
the Grant Project.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005,
appropriates $15,000 in Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment grant funds
in the General Fund for the Radon Program. It also authorizes the transfer of $15,000 from
the Natural Resources operating budget to the Grant Fund. The funds will be used to
continue the radon education and testing program.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2005, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves
City Council authorized expenditures in 2004 for various purposes. The authorized
expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2004 because:
There was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2004 and therefore,
there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or
encumber the monies.
February 15, 2005
The project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council
could not be completed during 2004 and reappropriation of those dollars is
necessary for completion of the project in 2005.
To carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2005 with
unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2004.
Because of the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed
into individual fund balances at the end of 2004.
Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance, which was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005, are as follows:
General Fund
$ 1,948,506
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund
$ 587,329
Recreation Fund
$ 115,258
Enterprise Funds
Light and Power Fund
$ 852 348
Storm Drainage Fund
$ 202,050
Wastewater Fund
$ 170,178
Water Fund
$ 448,338
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2005, Appropriating Unanticinated Revenue in the
Building Community Choices Capital Projects Fund - Mason Transportation Corridor Trail
Design=Sprine Creek Trail North Project for Design of the Mason Transportation Corridor
Trail North from the Spring Creek Trail and Connecting With the Colorado State University
Campus.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005,
appropriates new grant funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
authorized by the adoption of Resolution 2005-005, into the Mason Transportation Corridor
(MTC) Trail project's budget. This new grant from CDOT will fund the design of the MTC
Trail north from the Spring Creek Trail to connect with the Colorado State University
campus. In the future, the City will continue to pursue additional grant funding to cover the
construction costs for this segment of the MTC Trail. This extension of the MTC Trail
northward from the Spring Creek Trail is consistent with the adopted Master Plan for the
Mason Transportation Corridor Project.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 013 2005 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - Minor Streets Project to be used with Existing Appronriations for the
Design and Construction of the Lemav Avenue Southbound Right Turn Lane at Mulberry
Street.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005,
appropriates grant funds received from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ("CMAQ")
February 15, 2005
to install a right turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue at Mulberry Street.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 014 2005 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Transit Fund to Support Alternative Modes of Transportation in the Transportation Demand
Management Program.
These funds were received from the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality
Council's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ("CMAQ") grant program. This program
is administered by the Colorado Department of Transportation. This funding will permit
additional financial support of alternative modes in the SmartTripsTM program. Ordinance
No. 014, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2005, Makine Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
On December 7, 2004 during consideration of First Reading of the Fall 2004 Land Use Code
revisions, and again on December 21 during Second Reading, Council voted to conditionally
allow drive-in restaurants in the N-C zone, subject to the establishment of design standards.
Since that time, staff has worked closely with a potential applicant, a local franchisee of a
national chain restaurant, to craft a set of design standards. The design standards are
intended to balance the permitting of the use with the desire to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 at its January 20, 2005 meeting to
recommend approval of the design standards for drive-in restaurants in the N-C zone.
City Council also approved specific Code amendments on December 21, 2004 that further
restrict the minimum lot frontage requirements for buildings constructed side -by -side within
the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer (NCB) zone districts. Upon further review of these approved Code changes, it was
determined that text changes suggested by staff at the hearing did not accurately capture the
direction given by the Council. Therefore, staff is proposing revised language that will more
accurately extend the limitation on "skinny houses" to all uses.
Ordinance No. 015, 2005 was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2005, Desi ne ating the First Public School / First
Catholic Church Building, 115 Riverside Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Michael Braskich and Bianca Katz, are initiating this request
for Fort Collins Landmark designation of the First Public School / First Catholic Church
Building. This property is undisputably one of the most significant properties in Fort
Collins, for its association with important events and individuals that have made a significant
contribution to local history. Additionally, due to its association with the original settlement
of Fort Collins, the property has a very high probability of yielding information, including
artifacts, important to the history of Fort Collins. The building was specifically constructed
QIZI
February 15, 2005
as the first public schoolhouse in Fort Collins, and predates the official establishment of the
Fort Collins townsite. It is thus one of the oldest buildings in the city. Despite modifications
to the building associated with its use as a private dwelling, the building retains sufficient
integrity to convey its significance. The building was entered on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1980, as a contributing element of the Laurel School Historic District.
Due to its unique role in Fort Collins' history, the First Public School / First Catholic Church
Building warrants the community's highest recognition, and should be designated
individually as a Fort Collins Landmark. Ordinance No. 016, 2005, was unanimously
adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2005, Designating the Dukes/Dunlap Garage 501
Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of
the City Code.
The Dukes/Dunlap property contains both a house and garage. At its December 8, 2004
meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission found the house to be eligible for
Landmark designation, and forwarded this recommendation to Council. On January 18,
2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 003, 2005 on Second Reading, designating the
Dukes/Dunlap House as a Fort Collins Landmark.
The property owner, Mona Frayer, is requesting that the garage also be designated as a
Landmark. At the Landmark Preservation Commission's January 12 meeting, Ms. Frayer
provided detailed information on the history and architecture of the Dukes/Dunlap Garage.
The Commission found that the garage is eligible for Landmark designation, and passed
Resolution 3-2005, recommending this designation to Council. Qualifying under Standard
3, the Dukes/Dunlap Garage embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and
method of construction, and contributes to the historical and architectural significance of
both the Dukes/Dunlap property and of the Fort Collins community. Further, the Dukes/Dunlap
Garage exhibits excellent integrity, retaining all seven qualities of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Ordinance No. 017, 2005, was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 1, 2005.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2005, Desi ng ating the Snook/Hale House and Two
Garages, 220 South Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark
Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code.
The owners of the property, Leroy and Marie Twarogowski, are initiating this request for
Fort Collins Landmark designation of the Snook/Hale House and Two Garages. The Snook/Hale
House is an excellent example of Craftsman architecture, with very good integrity. The two
garages date to the period of significance and are eligible for designation under Standard 3.
Both demonstrate good integrity, and contribute to the historical and architectural
significance of the property. Ordinance No. 018, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on February 1, 2005.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2005, Amending Section 25-49 of the City Code
501
February 15, 2005
Increasing the Annual Income Limits for the Determination of Eligibility for the Sales Tax
Rebate on Food to Fifty Percent of the Median Income
The City has included grocery food as part of the sales tax base since the inception of the tax
in 1969. Tax on grocery food has been an integral part of the tax base, accounting for about
$5,645,189 of $44.3 million of tax collected for the general government uses. This is 12.7%
of the total tax collected. The City has operated a rebate program for sales tax paid on
grocery food since the early 1980s. The program provides that households which meet the
income level guidelines (now set at 30% of the area median income and updated annually)
may apply for taxes paid in the prior year. Approximately 640 households qualify for the
program. For each member of the eligible household, the City rebates $40.
Ordinance No. 022, 2005, which was unanimously adopted as amended on First Reading on
February 1, 2005, increases the annual income limits for the determination of eligibility for
the sales tax rebate to fifty percent (50%) of the median income. This would vastly increase
the number of households eligible for the program. The Ordinance also provides for
rounding to the nearest $50 for household income eligibility and increases the maximum
members in a household from four to eight.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force.
The Larimer County Drug Task Force ("Task Force") includes Fort Collins Police Services,
Loveland Police Department, Larimer County Sheriffs Department, Drug Enforcement
Administration, and the Colorado State University Police Department.
Fort Collins Police Services applied to the Office of National Drug Control Policy on behalf
of the Task Force for federal grant monies to help fund the investigation of illegal narcotics
activities in Larimer County. The City has recently received notification of the grant award
in the amount of $45,000. These funds will be used to help offset the overtime costs of each
participating agency.
This appropriation is not a request to identify new dollars for the Fort Collins Police Services
2005 budget. This action appropriates the $45,000 in new federal grant money. As the
administrator of this grant, Fort Collins Police Services will assure participating agencies
receive their share of the funds.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2005, Amending Various Sections of the City Code to
Define the Term "Growth Management Area" and to Replace the Existing References to
"Fort Collins Urban Growth Area" with Said Term.
This Ordinance adds to Chapter 1 of the City Code a definition of the term "Growth
Management Area". The City Charter contains a definition of the term "Fort Collins Urban
Growth Area" and the new "Growth Management Area" definition references and includes
that Charter definition. The term "Growth Management Area" is the more commonly
502
February 15, 2005
accepted and currently used term and this change will update the Code accordingly. Also,
there are two references in the City Code to the term "Fort Collins Urban Growth Area" and
these references are revised to instead reference the newly added term, "Growth Management
Area".
21. First Reading of Ordinance No, 025, 2005 Amending Section 2-31 of the City Code
Pertainin¢ to Executive Sessions. Postponed to March 1, 2005.
This Ordinance would amend the provisions of the City Code pertaining to executive
sessions to clarify that Council can provide direction to City staff or other persons during the
course of an executive session with regard to the matters that are permissible for discussion
in executive session.
22. Resolution 2005-010 Adopting the Recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Board
Regarding Building Community Choices Disbursements.
In 1997, voters approved a Building Community Choices Capital Improvement Program,
dedicated towards funding Natural Areas and Parks Projects. The program is funded by a
one -quarter cent sales and use tax, due to expire on December 31, 2005. The Building
Community Choices program for Natural Areas and Parks projects included $576,692 in
funding for improvements to community parks. The fund has a current balance of $429,257,
all of which has been appropriated in prior years.
In 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 044, 2002, appropriating proceeds totaling
$50,000 from a Great Outdoors Colorado grant to be used with Building Community Choices
— Community Park Improvements appropriations, totaling $260,000, to construct the
following improvements: (1) Rolland Moore Park - tennis courts and parking improvements;
(2) City Park - for a new basketball court; (3) Lee Martinez Park - sidewalk improvements.
Improvements to the tennis courts at Rolland Moore Park and the sidewalk improvements
at Lee Martinez Park have been completed. The new City Park basketball court and parking
improvements at Rolland Moore Park will be developed in 2005.
The four community parks (City, Edora, Lee Martinez, Rolland Moore) are without
adequate sidewalks. Presently, people use grass areas and park streets for access to the
park from surrounding neighborhoods. Sidewalks between many internal facilities at the
parks are also lacking. Building sidewalks will improve safety and access to and through
these parks. ADA accessibility is very limited and would be greatly improved by the new
sidewalks as well. The total cost of sidewalk improvements is estimated to be $244,000.
Funds will also be used to make improvements to the ball field lights at Rolland Moore Park
and the west ball field at Edora Park. New visors will be added to the lights to reduce
spillage and glare at the fields. The total cost of the light improvements is estimated to be
$25,000.
503
February 15, 2005
23. Resolution 2005-011 Adopting the Recommendation of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The guidelines for the Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming
accounts (Fort Fund) provide a three -tiered funding system. Organizations may apply for
grants from these accounts to fund community events. Tier # 1 was established as an annual
programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more
public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier #1 each April. Tier
#2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of
events that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds
after expenses. Tier #3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply
for funding of events that generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are
fund-raising in nature. Applications for support from Tier #2 and Tier #3 are accepted each
January and June.
Disbursements from funds in the City's Cultural Development and Programming and
Tourism Programming accounts as shown on Exhibit "A" to the Resolution were
recommended by the Cultural Resources Board at its regular meeting on January 27, 2005
for Tier #2 and Tier #3 applicants.
24. Resolution 2005-012 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve
Account in the Wastewater Utility Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Sculptural
Elements for the Wetland Mitigation Ponds behind the East Drake Water Treatment Facility.
This Resolution would approve expenditures of $70,000 for design, fabrication, installation
and contingency for a project to install sculptural works by Lynne Hull at the wetland
mitigation ponds behind the East Drake Water Treatment Facility.
25. Resolution 2005-013 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Crawford Annexation.
The Crawford Annexation is 30.04 acres in size. The site is located approximately one-half
mile west of North College Avenue on the south side of Willox Lane. Contiguity with the
existing municipal boundary is gained along the eastern boundary which is shared with the
west property line of the Hickory Village Mobile Home Park. Contiguity is also gained
along a portion of the southern boundary which is shared with the north property line of the
City of Fort Collins Soft Gold Park. The recommended zoning is U-E, Urban Estate. This
zoning complies with the Structure Plan Map.
The proposed Resolution states that it is the City's intent to annex this property and directs
that the published notice required by State law be given of the Council's hearing to consider
the needed annexation ordinance. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of
the annexation and zoning ordinances on April 19, 2005. Not less than 30 days prior,
published notice is required by State law.
504
February 15, 2005
26. Resolution 2005-014 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings in District Court
Regarding the Exclusion of Previously Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the
Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in the Larimer County District
Court to properly exclude previously annexed properties from the Poudre Valley Fire
Protection District in accordance with state law and to allow for the provision of fire
protection services to such properties by the Poudre Fire Authority.
27. Resolution 2004-015 Authorizing a Revocable Permit on Property Owned by the City for
Installation of an 8" Sanitary Sewer Line.
Timberline Star Properties, LLC has requested a revocable permit for the installation of a
City sanitary sewer line 8 inches in diameter on City Light and Power property. City staff
has reviewed the plans and specifications for this improvement and has concluded that the
improvement will not result in adverse impact to the City owned property. Timberline Star
Properties, LLC will be responsible for acquiring all required easements from any affected
adjacent property owner(s). Said sanitary sewer line shall, upon the completion of
installation and acceptance by the City, be dedicated to the City for public use. At such time
that Timberline Road is widened, the 8" sanitary sewer line will be within the Timberline
Road right-of-way.
28. Resolution 2005-016 Making an Appointment to the Human Relations Commission
A vacancy currently exists on the Human Relations Commission due to the resignation of
Jenny Lopez Filkins. Councilmembers Roy and Kastein reviewed the applications on file and
conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Paige Backlund Jarquin
to fill the vacancy.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2005 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included
in the 2005 Adopted City Budget.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer
of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to
the Grant Project.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2005, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves.
505
February 15, 2005
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012 2005 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Building Community Choices Capital Proiects Fund - Mason Transportation Corridor Trail
Design - Spring Creek Trail North Project for Design of the Mason Transportation Corridor
Trail North from the Spring Creek Trail and Connecting With the Colorado State University_
Campus.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 013 2005 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund - Minor Streets Project to be used with Existing Appropriations for the
Design and Construction of the Lemay Avenue Southbound Right Turn Lane at Mulberry
Street.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2005, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Transit Fund to Support Alternative Modes of Transportation in the Transportation Demand
Management Program.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2005, Desi ng ating the First Public School / First
Catholic Church Building, 115 Riverside Avenue, Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2005, Designating the Dukes/Dunlap Garage 501
Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of
the Cites
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2005, Desi nating the Snook/Hale House and Two
Garages, 220 South Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark
Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2005, Amending Section 25-49 of the City Code
Increasing the Annual Income Limits for the Determination of Eligibility for the Sales Tax
Rebate on Food to Fifty Percent of the Median Income.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No 023 2005 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task Force.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2005, Amending Various Sections of the City Code to
Define the Term "Growth Management Area" and to Replace the Existing References to
"Fort Collins Urban Growth Area" with Said Term.
21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2005 Amending Section 2-31 of the City Code
Pertaining to Executive Sessions.
506
February 15, 2005
32. Items Relating to Nuisance Gatherings, Public Nuisance Amendments and Regal
Registrations.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2005, Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code
to Add a New Article Relating to Nuisance Gatherings.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the
City Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2005, Amending Article VI, Division 2 of the
City Code Relating to Residential Rental Registration.
34. Items Relating to Out of City Services
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2005, Amending Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 26
of the City Code to Establish Requirements and Procedures for Utility Service
Outside the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Mayor Martinez requested that staff speak regarding one of the Consent Calendar items. City
Manager Atteberry spoke regarding item #19 First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2005,
Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force and the mission and efforts of the multijurisdictional task force.
Councilmember Kastein commented regarding item #18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 02Z
2005, Amending Section 25-49 of the City Code, Increasing the Annual Income Limits for the
Determination of Eligibility for the Sales Tax Rebate on Food to Fifty Percent of the Median
Income.
Councilmember Weitkunat spoke regarding item #23 Resolution 2005-011 Adopting the
Recommendation of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding item #11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2005,
Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Building Community Choices Capital Projects Fund -
Mason Transportation Corridor Trail Design - Spring Creek Trail North Project for Design of the
507
February 15, 2005
Mason Transportation Corridor Trail North from the Spring Creek Trail and Connecting With the
Colorado State University Campus.
Councilmember Roy commented on item #18 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2005,
Amending Section 25-49 of the City Code, Increasing the Annual Income Limits for the
Determination of Eligibility for the Sales Tax Rebate on Food to Fifty Percent of the Median
Income.
Items Relating to Nuisance Gatherings,
Public Nuisance Amendments and Rental Registrations
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Within the Fort Collins city limits, there are approximately 10,500 rental units in boarding houses,
and in single-family, two family and multi family dwelling units up to and including four-plexes.
The total cost to administer the proposed rental registration program for the first two years is
estimated at $459, 000 which includes the following direct and indirect costs:
Personnel $ 297, 000
.3 Systems Analyst
.5 Administrative Aide
1.0 Housing Inspector
Hourly temporary staff
Equipment and software $148, 000
Enables online registration and payment
Miscellaneous %es, postage. etc. 14,00
Total for first two years $ 459, 000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2005, Amending Chapter 20 of the City Code to Add
a New Article Relating to Nuisance Gatherings.
The Nuisance Gatherings provision creates a new misdemeanor criminal offense directed
at social gatherings or parties that result in nuisance behaviors occurring on neighboring
properties. These amendments would be in conjunction with continued efforts to more
effectively and proactively enforce current nuisance laws, including loud parties, code
compliance issues and the Public Nuisance Ordinance.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the City
Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances.
R11I:3
February 15, 2005
The Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) has proven to be an effective tool in reducing repeat
violations at specific properties. These amendments are intended to improve current
processes and strengthen the enforcement provisions of the ordinance.
C. First Reading of OrdinanceNo.021,2005,AmendingArticleVI,Division2oftheCityCode
Relating to Residential Rental Registration.
The Residential Rental Registration Ordinance establishes procedures for identifying ALL
rental units within the city limits of Fort Collins, excluding only multi family units larger
thanfour plexes. The purpose ofthe Rental Registration Program is to identify rental units,
educate all parties about Rental Housing Standards and other City codes, and increase the
efficacy of nuisance code enforcement through a local contact and better information
sharing.
BACKGROUND
City Council discussed these three ordinances at its study session on January 25, 2005 and directed
staff to bring these forward for formal consideration by the Council with certain changes. These
changes, as well as other staff -initiated changes, are shown in boldfaced type.
Item A - Nuisance Gatherings
This proposed ordinance will add another tool to more effectively and proactively address the
nuisance behaviors resulting from such gatherings and enforce compliance against those hosting,
participating or otherwise knowingly allowingsuch gatherings. The Nuisance Gatherings provision
includes the following:
a. Declares social gatherings of five or more people assembled for a social
activity or special occasion that result in the occurrence of unlawful and
harmful behavior and conditions on neighboring public or private property
by person attending such gatherings to be a public nuisance;
b. Requires participants in the nuisance gathering to cease and requires all
persons not domiciled at the premises to immediately disperse;
C. Provides a procedure by which the City can recover the costs ofabating the
nuisance such as overtime, equipment use or damage, overhead, medical
expenses, etc for any city department employee (including Poudre Fire
Authority) called to respond to and abate the nuisance party. The cost of
abatement can be included as court -ordered restitution. It can also be
collected as a separate assessment against the property ifthe property owner
has been convicted of a violation of the ordinance.
A variety of methods will be used to inform and educate stakeholders (property owners, property
managers, tenants and neighbors) and all community members about this change to the Code.
509
February 15, 2005
Item B - Public Nuisance Ordinance Amendments
The Code Compliance Case Manager responsible for the PNO notes that the majority of landlords
and property managers are very willing to take action to avoid recurringproblems at theirproperty.
Most problems are resolved after a I" violation notice. However, in some cases the owner and/or
property manager is not responsive, even after a notice has been sent out about a 2nd or 3rd
violation. The proposed changes are designed to give staff the flexibility to work effectively with
responsive property owners and managers and to increase the potential sanctions of the PNO in
those cases where responsible parties do not respond. The following summarizes the proposed
amendments:
a. Deletes the provision requiring posting ofnotice that a civil public nuisance
action will be filed in 10 days; instead, requires that the posting on the
property occur at the time the civil action is filed;
b. Amends the provision requiring a 45-day waiting period after a second (or
fourth) violation to apply only if the property owner or manager has actually
filed an eviction proceeding after notice of the second (or fourth) violation.
The purpose of this change is to ensure staff can work with those owners or
managers who have instituted eviction proceedings, but still maintain the
ability to pursue PNO action against those who do not respond to notices;
C. Adds provisions clarifying when property managers are subject to the
ordinance;
d. Adds a provision allowing the city to send Public Nuisance Ordinance
notices to any address known to the city through utility, registration or other
records rather than be constrained only to records of the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder;
e. Adds a provision stating that a plea or verdict of guilty to the underlying
violation(s) proves thepublic nuisance, thereby alleviating the need to again
prove the existence of the public nuisance in the PNO action;
f. Adds a provision clarifying that a parry's abatement efforts taken only after
the final notice of violation does not constitute a defense under the
ordinance;
g. Adds a provision allowingfor stipulations between the City and any party to
be accepted by the Court or Hearing Officer;
h. Adds a provision allowing abatement orders to include a restriction on the
number of occupants or guests or the types of activities on the premises, as
510
February 15, 2005
well as revocation or suspension of any license or permit pertaining to the
use of the parcel.
Offers for Council's consideration a provision (Option A) which authorizes an order
prohibiting the rental of a parcel, but only if the owner of the property has failed to
abide by a previous abatement order pertaining to the same parcel.
Staff members will undertake a concerted effort to educate property owners and managers about
these changes in the coming months via direct mail, stakeholder meetings, the media and other
venues.
Item C - Rental Registration
The goal of the Residential Rental Registration program is to accomplish thefollowing:
a. Identify all rental units within the city limits of Fort Collins;
b. Educate all parties about Rental Housing Standards and other City Code
provisions; and
C. Increase the efficacy of nuisance code enforcement through a local contact
and better information sharing.
Work is underway to develop a user friendly registration system that is easily accessible and meets
the needs ofall stakeholders. The initial registration process will use methods such as mail -informs
and registration "clinics" where staff will be on hand to assist with data entry and face -to face
registration. Ultimately, users will be able to register and make payments totally independently
using an online system. Project team members hope to have this capability ready no later than
September 2005.
Registration Information Required
The following basic information will be asked ofrental property owners at the time ofregistration:
• Address of rental property
• Name of and contact information for property owner
• Name of and contact information for local agent
• Acknowledgment of having read and understood the City Rental Housing Standards
• Acknowledgment of having provided tenants the City Lease Addendum and
accompanying brochure
The information on the rental registration form, once completed, will be compiled into a database,
a portion of which will be available to the public via an online search engine. Thus, a neighbor of
a rental property could search the database by address to determine if the property is a registered
rental and, if so, learn the contact information of the local agent and/or property owner. Tenant
511
February 15, 2005
names will not be held on file by the City or available to the general public. However, the lease
addendum must be provided to the City by the property owner or local agent upon request of the
City.
Term and Fees
Registration will be required on a biennial basis (every two years) or within 30 days after any
change of ownership. The fee will be $65.00 per dwelling unit for the initial two-year registration
period, with renewal required every two years. There is no charge for updating information (e.g.
a new local contact is designated or owners address changes) as long as the update is accomplished
within 30 days ofthe change. Property owners who do not comply with the registration requirement
or registration updates after notice from the Director of Building and Zoning would be subject to
the penalties imposed under Section 1-15 (up to $1,000 fine and/or six (6) months in jail).
Prior to the end of the first two years of operation the registration program costs and fees will be
reassessed. Staffanticipates that the ongoing costs will be lower once the system is up and running
and the majority of property owners have registered their rental properties.
Outreach, Education and Implementation
Assuming Council wishes to move ahead with registration, staff members are preparing to conduct
a thorough outreach and education campaign. The most basic tool will be that of a direct mailing
to those properties where the County Assessor's records list an owner at an address different from
the property. At the same time staff will conduct Registration "clinics" and use other outreach
methods to reach property owners, property managers, tenants and others with an interest in this
issue.
The online self -registration program will not be fully functional in the beginning, however staff
members are prepared to use mail -in, fax -in, workshops/clinics and other such methods to ensure
that registration can be implemented as simply as possible. Current plans are to implement the
Registration Program on April 1, 2005 with the goal ofreaching and registering as many properties
as possible by August], 2005, allowing for a 5-month "grace period ". August], 2005 will be the
official start of each unit's registration term. After that date, properties that are not registered
would be subject to penalties.
All of the forms, instructions and links to applicable codes will be available on the City's website
at fcgov.com/rental prior to the implementation of the Registration program. "
City Manager Atteberry stated this was a difficult issue and that there were no "perfect solutions."
He stated this was an "emotional issue" for many people and that there were "strong perspectives
on all sides of this issue." He stated there had been "unpredecented" and extensive discussion and
analysis of these issues by the Council, staff and citizens. He stated staff would be presenting its
best "professional recommendation" based on extensive research.
512
February 15, 2005
Tess Heffernan, City Manager's Office, presented background information regarding the agenda
item. She stated direction had been received from the Council and that staff had prepared a
residential rental registration ordinance, amendments to the Public Nuisance Ordinance, and
provisions regarding nuisance gatherings. She stated the goals of the residential rental registration
ordinance were to identify rental units within the City, increase the efficacy of nuisance code
enforcement, and educate people about rental housing standards and other City codes. She stated
the the rental registration program would include single-family, duplex, boarding house, three-plex
and four-plex units (except those located in large multifamily complexes generally under one
management). She stated the registration would be biennial, or within 30 days of change of
ownership, and that there would be no charge for updating information. She stated the initial fee
would cover start-up costs and would be $65 per unit (an average of $32.50 per year) and that after
the first two years the fee would be about $40 per unit ($19-20 per year). She stated this would
initially come to about $2.60 per month per rental unit and $1.58 per month per month ongoing. She
stated the registration information would include address, name and contact information for the
property owner and a local agent, an acknowledgement that the rental housing standards were read,
and an acknowledgement that the lease addendum had been provided to the tenants. She stated the
local agent would stand in for the owner for the purpose of accepting service and would also serve
as a contact in the event of difficulty in locating or communicating with the owner. She stated the
agent must live or have an office within a 75-mile radius of the Growth Management Area. She
stated registration information would be stored in a central database, that information about the unit
address and the designated contact person would be available on-line to the public, and that tenant
names would not be kept on file by the City or made available to the public. She stated the goal
would be to implement the program by April 1, to register all properties by August 1 and to have
an on-line totally self-sustaining system by September. She stated the intent was to make the system
user-friendly and allow on-line registrations. She stated outreach would begin immediately to tell
people about the registration program. She stated the Public Nuisance Ordinance amendments
would give staff the flexibility to work better with responsive property owners and to increase
sanctions for unresponsive property owners. She stated two options were being presented to the
Council regarding prohibiting the rental of a property: (1) an abatement order would not be allowed
to prohibit the rental of a parcel, or (2) the abatement order would prohibit the rental of a parcel only
if the owner had failed to abide by a previous order pertaining to that parcel. She stated the nuisance
gathering provisions would create a new misdemeanor criminal offense for nuisance behaviors
spilling over onto other properties, declare social gatherings of five or more people resulting in
unlawful or harmful behavior on the neighboring property to be a public nuisance, and require the
participants to cease and disperse. She stated the persons responsible for a nuisance gathering
offense would be those who sponsor, conduct, host, invite or permit the nuisance gathering. She
stated the owner could be held liable but only if they were on the property at the time and met that
description of the "responsible person." She stated this provision would also establish a procedure
that would allow the City to recover the cost of abating a nuisance. She stated the owner would not
be responsible for abatement costs unless cited as a "responsible person." She stated at sentencing
a mitigating factor would be that the "responsible person" tried to end the gathering and notified
authorities. She stated there would be a study session on March 8 to talk about the economic study
results and to review the framework established by Council direction i.e., that the prohibition on no
more than three unrelated persons would remain the general rule and would apply to single-family
dwellings and/or zones and that higher occupancy limits would be considered based on a variance
513
February 15, 2005
or permit procedure. She stated a study session was scheduled for April 26 to look at a revised
ordinance to be scheduled for Council consideration in May.
Mayor Martinez stated there would be discussion about the "three unrelated" ordinance at a later
date and that this would not be germaine to the discussion at this point.
Councilmember Tharp suggested discussing the first two ordinances and then proceeding to
discussion of the more complex rental registration issue.
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to suspend the rules of
procedure to separate the vote and discussion on the three ordinances. The vote on the motion was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Martinez stated citizen participation would be allowed first on Ordinances No. 019 and 020,
2005 relating to nuisance gatherings and abatement of public nuisances.
Leo Buccellato, 2238 Iroquios Drive, stated he was in favor of the two ordinances and would favor
anything that could be done to address noise and nuisance problems. He stated his past complaints
had resulted in some improvements in the City's response to problems in his neighborhood. He
stated there were chronic nuisance problems for some rental properties and that some homeowners
were selling out and leaving the City. He stated parties had "changed" with later start times and
attitude changes.
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, stated asked that Council consider that renters were not
always students but were "economically disadvantaged people" such as seniors and single parents.
She stated there were existing ordinances that could be enforced to address nuisance problems. She
asked the Council to use current information and data and noted that nuisance enforcement should
apply to owner -occupied as well as renter -occupied housing. She stated using outdated information
might result in the wrong decision being made. She expressed a concern that she could be faced
with a criminal offense on her record because of the behavior of one of her 1,100 renters.
Courtney Stevens, ASCSU Director of Community Affairs, concurred with the previous comments.
She stated she previously had a concern that the nuisance gathering ordinance did allow an
exemption for "people who called in on themselves." She stated many people having a party did not
mean for it to get out of hand and that CSU advocated that people call the police if a party did get
out of hand to protect themselves and others. She stated she favored the proposed revision to allow
consideration of the mitigating factor for those who called the police.
Erin Berkowitz, property owner and graduate student, urged the Council to keep the ordinances as
they were. She stated the changes would unfairly target those who had responsible parties and
would not address the problems. She stated she should not be held responsible for renting out her
house to someone who had a party when she was not there.
514
February 15, 2005
Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee Street, stated the stronger Public Nuisance Ordinance had not
solved the neighborhood problems resulting from a complex mixture of social, economic and
cultural issues. He stated complex problems could not be resolved through a single action. He
stated it was appropriate that Council was considering a two or three pronged approach but that
some elements were still missing. He questioned whether there was adequate understanding of the
problem and why the Public Nuisance Ordinance had failed. He stated the Council could be adding
unnecessary and ineffective laws that would not address the problems. He stated there could be
innovative approaches that would not necessarily involve new laws, such as closer cooperation with
Colorado State University. He stated there must be some way to "measure success."
Dave Doman, 1836 Wallenberg Drive, stated this was an 'organic problem" and that it was a
mistake to segregate the issues from the "three unrelated" issue. He stated this was a piecemeal
approach.
Mayor Martinez requested clarification regarding whether the Council wished to discuss and vote
on the first two ordinances before moving onto the rental registration ordinance. The consensus was
in favor of completing the discussion and vote on the first two ordinances before moving to the
rental registration ordinance.
Mayor Martinez noted that Mr. Doman brought up a good point that all of these issues were
interrelated.
Councilmember Kastein asked if an absentee owner would be responsible under the nuisance
gathering ordinance if not present when the gathering took place. City Attorney Roy stated in order
to be a "responsible person" convicted of an offense you must be an owner/occupant/tenant or
otherwise have possessory control; sponsor, conduct or host the gathering; and knowingly permit
it to become a public nuisance.
Councilmember Kastein asked if a violation of this ordinance would count as an infraction of the
Public Nuisance Ordinance. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated this would
depend on the timing of the offense and notices sent on previous violations.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this ordinance would apply to a very large nuisance gathering such
as a riot. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked who would be ticketed in that kind of case. Jim Szakmeister, Fort
Collins Police Services, stated it would be the house to which the police were called or the house
determined by the police to be the property from which the problem arose. He stated this house
would be the one held primarily responsible.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the "source of the problem" would therefore be held responsible.
Szakmeister replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kastein asked if only those who would receive tickets would be held responsible
for the cost of cleanup. Szakmeister stated they would be responsible for the cost of abatement.
515
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a riot, whether the goal would be to determine the origin
and to issue a ticket and hold the source of the riot accountable for the costs. Szakmeister replied
in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked if riot participants would also be held accountable. Szakmeister stated the
police would go to the house that was the source of the incident and that the people living at that
property would be cited.
Mayor Martinez asked if riot participants could still be held accountable. City Attorney Roy replied
in the negative and stated Council had expressed a concern that the owner not convicted of the
offense might be held responsible for costs and that the definition of "responsible person" had been
changed to be "any person convicted of a violation." He stated in order to be convicted of a
violation you must have a possessory interest in the property, conduct the party and knowingly
permit it to get out of hand. He stated this change was made in response to Council direction.
Martinez Martinez stated there needed to be a change in the ordinance because those participating
in riots should be held accountable for the costs of law enforcement. City Attorney Roy stated
spreading the costs among a larger group i.e., holding the participants in a gathering responsible
would mean that they must be convicted of something. He stated if someone was convicted in
County Court of engaging in a riot that restitution against that individual could be possible. He
stated riot participants would not be "off the hook" but that under this particular ordinance the costs
would be assessed against those permitting the party to get out of control. He stated there might be
separate violations (unreasonable noise, engaging in a riot, etc.) that would allow for the recovery
of costs from other individuals.
Mayor Martinez suggested that this ordinance should provide that the City could seek restitution
from riot participants once they were convicted. City Attorney Roy stated to be convicted of this
particular offense the person convicted would have to be the one hosting the party.
Mayor Martinez stated the ordinance should be changed to require those participating in the riot to
be held accountable. City Attorney Roy asked if the Mayor was suggesting that there be a local
ordinance similar to the State provision prohibiting participation in a riot.
Mayor Martinez replied in the negative and stated the ordinance should be changed to provide that
the people who could be held responsible for the expense should include those participating in the
riot and receiving a ticket. City Attorney Roy stated if an individual was convicted of a separate
offense that there was a separate possibility of restitution through the court. He asked if the Mayor
was indicating that cost recovery should be mandatory under those other types of offenses.
Mayor Martinez stated cost recovery should be mandatory rather than at the discretion of the court.
Councilmember Tharp stated she agreed with Mayor Martinez.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if there were tickets issued for the last inicident. Szakmeister
stated tickets were issued after the riot after the area was secured. He stated the officers were
516
February 15, 2005
ordered to issue tickets at four specific "party houses" for noise violations. He stated this ordinance
would cover a different aspect than the unreasonable noise ordinance and that if a party would get
out of hand the people responsible for the party would be held ultimately responsible for what
happened as it "flows out into the street." He stated this was an additional remedy.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if persons involved in the riot could be connected to the nuisance
gathering and held responsible for part of the "restorative process." Teresa Ablao, City Attorney's
Office, stated on some of the noise violations from the previous incident on which there were
convictions, part of the fine was suspended on the condition of payment for cost of cleanup. She
stated restitution was available though the courts on those individuals. City Attorney Roy stated
there was an issue regarding whether the costs the City would try to recover were reasonably related
to the kind of offense committed. He stated this ordinance would more clearly tie cleanup costs for
a riot to a property that was the "catalyst" for the riot. He stated this ordinance would apply to a
party that would have all kinds of disruptive behavior and that the costs associated with cleanup
would be more clearly tied to this kind of offense.
Mayor Martinez stated those arrested for participation in the riot should share in the cost of the riot.
He clarified that this ordinance would apply to events with five or more people and would not be
limited to large riots. Ablao stated the State law applied to events with three or more people.
Mayor Martinez stated he could not support an ordinance that did not hold all riot participants who
were arrested responsible.
Councilmember Hamrick asked why the ordinance specified five people. Ablao stated it was
necessary to define a "riot" and that staff looked not only at the State provision but provisions in
other municipal jurisdictions that specified three to five people.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the "unlawful and harmful behavior" clause and how this
would be proven. City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance enumerated the particular kinds of
behaviors that would fall under the ordinance.
Councilmember Tharp asked how the ordinance would deal with the concern expressed by the
ASCSU representative about how persons could deal with a party they knew was getting out of
control i.e., at what point would people need to call for assistance from the police and how that
would be taken into consideration in determining responsibility. City Attorney Roy stated this
would be a mitigating factor upon sentencing but not a specified factor relating to conviction. He
stated the desire was to have people call the police but not be automatically relieved of
responsibility if they did so.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification that this would be looked at as a mitigating factor as
part of the penalty process. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the provision relating to abatement of the public nuisance
in Ordinance No. 20. She stated there was a statement in Section 20-113(c) that referenced a public
nuisance as being any condition or use of any parcel within the City limits on which three or more
517
February 15, 2005
separate violations occur within a 12 month period, while (d)(1) referenced two or more separate
violations of the same section in a six-month period. City Attorney Roy stated the provision relating
to two or more was added recently. He stated there were two ways in which a determination could
be made that a public nuisance existed: three separate violations within a year or five within two
years, and the additional provision relating to two of the same kinds of violations within six month.
He stated under that provision the City Manager could go through a hearing process to determine
whether the court should be asked to determine the existence of a public nuisance.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the nuisances that would be covered by the Public Nuisance
Ordinance. Beth Sowder, Code Compliance, explained the types of nuisances covered.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that three nuisance violations could constitute a
"public nuisance" based on the law. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Ordinance No. 20 would add language making it a civil matter as
opposed to a criminal matter. Sowder stated it had always been a civil judgement under the Public
Nuisance Ordinance.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the fourth WHEREAS clause in Ordinance No. 20 stated "that the
proposed amendments will improve current processes and allow for revocation of the ability to rent
a property under certain circumstances." City Attorney Roy stated the last part of that clause would
not be true if Council chose Option A and would need to be removed if that Option was chosen.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated item 4 in Section 20-117 (abatement order) related to orders
restricting the number of occupants and/or guests allowed on the premises and asked if this would
constitute an "occupancy statement." City Attorney Roy stated this was an example of the kinds of
orders a judge could enter to require a particular nuisance problem to be addressed. He stated this
was not a blanket rule limiting occupancy except in the context of one of the kinds of orders that a
judge might enter in a particular situation.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this would allow a judge to determine the number of occupants,
including family, in a building based on nuisance. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat expressed a concern about that language. She stated the fifth item dealt
with the revocation or suspension and asked if this would be eliminated under Option A. City
Attorney Roy stated paragraph 6 would allow the judge to enter all of the kinds of orders listed
provided that no order would cause the property to be forfeited or prohibit the rental of a parcel. He
stated Option B was that no order shall prohibit the rental of a parcel unless the owner had failed to
abide by a previous order of abatement pertaining to the same parcel.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this would be an abatement that would come with a declaration
that a public nuisance existed. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
518
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if public nuisance could exist based on three violations without
remedy within a year or two within six months. City Attorney Roy stated it would be two of the
same kind of violation within six months.
Councilmember Tharp asked what other options were available when an owner had failed to abide
by a previous order of abatement. City Attorney Roy stated the property owner could be held in
contempt for failure to abide by an order of the court.
Councilmember Tharp asked if that would be up to the Judge. City Attorney Roy replied in the
affirmative and stated the Judge could try other orders.
Councilmember Tharp stated there should be some way to deal with someone who refused to make
any changes or improvement. City Attorney Roy stated the Judge's discretion would be limited if
Option A was added and that Option B would allow the Judge some limited authority to prohibit the
rental of a parcel if a previous order pertaining to the same parcel had been disobeyed.
Councilmember Tharp asked if Option A would provide that the Judge would have to find some
other way to deal with the problem. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked if there was State public nuisance law that could be used. City Attorney Roy
stated there was a State public nuisance law. Sowder stated would be handled through the District
Attorney's Office rather than through the City.
Mayor Martinez stated would be an alternative. City Attorney Roy stated the kinds of violations
under the State law were generally felonies.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not like the Public Nuisance Ordinance when the
responsibility for any and all Code violations from tenants could be transferred to the landlord. He
referenced the paragraph that addressed any one of the parties pleading guilty (owner, property
manager, occupant or tenant) and the use of that as an admission of guilt for all of them. He asked
the City Attorney to address a potential alternative that the two had discussed. City Attorney Roy
stated if there was direction that a change could be made to language in Section 20-114(c) in Section
3 of the ordinance that provided that if an owner, property manager, occupant or tenant had made
a plea of guilty or no contest or had been found guilty of any of the violations then that plea or
finding would be deemed to establish all of the elements of the separate violations in the Public
Nuisance Ordinance. He stated he understood that Councilmember Kastein's objection was that an
owner ultimately could be held accountable and have one or more of the separate violations
established because of the entry of a plea of guilty by a tenant, when the tenant had not asserted all
of the available defenses. He stated the rationale behind the provision was in most cases it seemed
to be unreasonable to have to prove the case once beyond a reasonable doubt and then to have to
prove it again under the Public Nuisance Ordinance. He stated he understood the concern about one
party being responsible for the other's admission. He stated it would be possible to make this prima
facie evidence of the occurrence of the violation, in which case it would be suffice unless contested.
519
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Roy asked about Attachment 1 (Lease Addendum and Acknowledgement Form)
and how that related to this discussion. City Attorney Roy stated this form was a separate issue from
the Public Nuisance Ordinance. He stated the underlying nuisance ordinances dealing with snow
and ice removal, trash removal, lawnmowing and yard maintenance all individually held the owner
of a property liable for that responsibility. He stated the addendum would inform the landlord and
tenant of that fact.
Councilmember Kastein asked if a rubbish violation would automatically be entered as a Public
Nuisance Ordinance violation. Sowder stated the procedure with rubbish violations was to issue a
notice of violation to the owner, property manager and tenant and that the Code allowed seven days
to correct the problem. She stated citations were rarely issued because most people complied or
abatement procedures were followed.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance
No. 019, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein stated the issue brought up by Mayor Martinez about riot participatants was
a good point and asked how language could be incorporated. City Attorney Roy stated he believed
that this would require a different ordinance.
Mayor Martinez asked if this could be incorporated into this ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated
he understood that the intent would be that those participating in the riot would also be assessed
costs. He stated this ordinance in terms of the substantive offense did not speak to those
participating in the riot. He stated there were separate violations that might occur and that
mandatory cost recovery for participants would need to be set out in an ordinance adopted by the
Council saying that if individuals were convicted of any of those separate offenses that costs would
be imposed.
Mayor Martinez stated he wanted this ordinance to speak to that. City Attorney Roy stated that
could be done if the intent was to make it only in the context of hosting this kind of a gathering. He
stated if the intent was to hold nuisance gathering participants responsible for costs any time, even
if there was no riot situation, then there needed to be a separate ordinance.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like to hold nuisance gathering participants responsible for costs.
City Attorney Roy stated such language could be included in the ordinance on Second Reading.
Mayor Martinez asked if the motion maker and second would consider it a friendly amendment to
add language relating to making nuisance gathering participants responsible for costs.
Councilmembers Hamrick and Tharp accepted this as a friendly amendment.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy,
Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
520
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance
No. 020, 2005 (Option A) on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastem stated he would not support the ordinance until he had more information
prior to Second Reading about allowing the owner to be exempt from the admission of guilt by the
other parties involved i.e. the prima facie concept. City Attorney Roy asked if the intent was to
incorporate that as a friendly amendment to the main motion.
Councilmember Kastein offered a friendly amendment to direct staff to come forward with language
on Second Reading consistent with the prima facie concept.
Councilmembers Tharp and Hamrick accepted that as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she had a problem with restricting the number of occupants. She
stated this would go too far and that she would not support the ordinance unless that provision was
removed.
Mayor Martinez asked if there would be some way to modify that language to address the concern.
City Attorney Roy stated staff could look at ways to limit the application prior to Second Reading.
He stated some of the task force members believed that the court should have that ability because
it could be the number of occupants creating the problem in certain situations. He stated staff could
look at ways to narrow the application of this provision. Ablao stated the language was intended
to address issues when occupants had been convicted of a crime or were the cause of the nuisance
problem. She stated the issue might not be the number of occupants but who the occupants were.
Councilmember Weitkunat offered a friendly amendment to eliminate that language. She stated if
there were "criminal aspects" that this was a different issue than the number of occupants and guests
in a house. City Attorney Roy stated there was a provision that allowed the court to order certain
persons to stay away from the premises and that this might cover the concern addressed by Ms.
Ablao.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would prefer that this be clarified before Second Reading rather
than removing the language.
Mayor Martinez asked about the intent of the language. City Attorney Roy stated in the context of
a particular property this would be a "three unrelated" issue. He stated the intent was that if there
was a problem property and the Judge felt that the problem stemmed from too many occupants that
the judge could issue an order to cut down on the number of occupants to help alleviate the nuisance.
He stated this would not be an across-the-board occupancy limit but was a site -by -site ability to
restrict the number of occupants if the Judge decided that was the problem.
Councilmember Tharp stated the Council was trying to deal with the "problem situation" and that
if the Judge decided that the problem was in fact the number of occupants that this would be a
reasonable way to deal with the issue. She stated she favored retaining the language.
521
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the Judge had options. City Attorney Roy stated the Judge had
options to limit the number of guests at a party, the hours when parties could be held, or the presence
of alcohol on the premises. He stated removing the language as proposed would eliminate that one
option.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not feel that the language relating to the number of
occupants met the intent. She stated there were other options available to solve the problems and
that the language relating to occupant numbers should be removed until the Council had dealt with
other occupancy issues.
Mayor Martinez asked what those other issues were.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this kind of restriction should be discussed at the time of
discussion of the "three unrelated" ordinance. She stated this restriction opened up the possibility
of "abuse."
Mayor Martinez asked if the language relating to occupancy was removed whether the Judge could
use that as an option. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative and stated this was an attempt
to more clearly give the Judge the authority to use this as an option. He suggested that the Council
clarify whether any of the kinds of orders available to the Judge would "go too far."
Mayor Martinez stated the language could be removed and that the Judge would be left with the
option to use such an order. He asked if there was any concern with the Judge using that option
although it would not be specified in the ordinance.
Councilmember Tharp stated she would like further information prior to Second Reading that would
convince her that the Judge would still have that as an option. City Attorney Roy stated
Subparagraph (C) under 20-117 stated: "Temporary or permanent abatement orders entered under
this Article shall be narrowly tailored so as to address the particular kinds of separate violations that
form the basis of the alleged public nuisance. Such orders may include ...." He stated specifiying
an option would encourage the Judge to consider such option.
Councilmember Tharp stated it was her intent that the Judge consider that option. City Attorney
Roy stated examples were cited in the ordinance to suggest that they might be appropriate kinds of
remedies.
Councilmember Hamrick asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Weitkunat's concern.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was concerned about the language relating to the number of
occupants. City Attorney Roy stated the language could be limited to clarify that that kind of order
could not entered to separate parties who were related.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned including the language at all when the judge had the authority
already. She stated this language would make the ordinance "far more restrictive" and create "more
522
February 15, 2005
complicated laws than are necessary." She stated she would not support the ordinance if the
language was included.
Mayor Martinez asked if the City Attorney would be looking into revised language before Second
Reading. City Attorney Roy stated he could look at that if that was Council's direction. The
consensus was to ask the City Attorney to look at such a revision.
Councilmember Tharp stated the Council was trying through these first two ordinances to respond
to some of the questions raised by people who spoke about why the existing Public Nuisance
Ordinance did not work. She stated the intent was to make the Public Nuisance Ordinance more
enforceable and effective.
Councilmember Hamrick stated the political process was not "an exact science." He stated when
things were not working the Council could change things.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated when more restrictive detail was added to the law that the process
became more complicated and difficult to enforce. She stated the Judge already had the authority
and that this did not need to be written into the law.
Councilmember Roy stated these items were not being "rushed" forward. He stated the intent was
to preserve neighborhoods. He stated he was hearing from people about how neighborhoods had
changed and that people felt that they were being forced to move. He stated the issue was quality
of life and the ability to invest and profit from making good business decisions and the ability to
have a home. He stated the intent was to make the neighborhoods "the best they can be."
Councilmember Kastein stated the question was what this ordinance would do to further that goal.
He stated he did not support the Public Nuisance Ordinance when it was adopted and that he did not
support working on revisions to the Public Nuisance Ordinance to make it a "stronger tool to use in
the wrong way." He stated this was fundamentally the wrong tool. He stated he believed that
responsibilities needed to be redefined and that the root of the problem needed to be addressed. He
stated he would not support the motion.
Mayor Martinez stated the Public Nuisance Ordinance had slowed down the process of dealing with
behavioral issues. He stated the Judge already had the authority to deal with issues without having
to wait for a number of violations within a specified time. He stated the hands of the judge were tied
by the ordinance and that this ordinance wouild make the Public Nuisance Ordinance even more
complex.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays:
Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS.
523
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Hamrick asked if Councilmember Bertschy could request that the ordinance be
brought back for consideration. City Attorney Roy stated under Council policy any ordinance could
be brought forward at the request of three Councilmembers or the Leadership Planning Team.
Mayor Martinez stated after the break citizen participation would be taken on Ordinance 21.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
Mayor Martinez stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the ordinance:
Pete Seele, Rolland Moore West Neighborhood Steering Committee.
John Hendrix, 3000 Tulane Drive, Thundermoor Neighborhood Organization.
Kay Lindgren, 1513 Independence Road.
Paul Anderson, Fort Collins resident.
Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the ordinance:
Edward Pando, 4318 Shadowbrooke Court, speaking on behalf of his son Gabe.
Don Butler, 1415 North College Avenue.
Blair Trautwein, 1819 Lakeshore Circle.
Courtney Stevens, ASCSU.
Jim Ringenberg, local attorney, 2849 Hearthstone Drive.
Arnold Drennen, 3412 Canadian Parkway.
Chris Tickner, 2213 Timber Creek Drive.
Rhonda Burrey, property manager.
Carrie Gillis, Fort Collins resident.
Brett Pavel, 517 Spring Canyon Court.
Mark Lueker, 2637 Wapiti Road.
Jim Schmidt, 2208 Stanford Road.
Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court.
Nathan Winn, 2709 Rawahs Way.
J. J. Hinville, landlord.
Kevin Wilcox, 2114 Sweetwater Creek Drive.
Dave Doman, 1836 Wallenberg Drive.
Laurie Dufloth, 3910 Highlands West Drive.
Jason Pifer, Prospect Lane.
Robert Howe, Fort Collins Board of Realtors.
Charles Clarke, 327 East Magnolia Street.
Keven Westhuis, 2944 Telluride Court.
524
February 15, 2005
Rick Hausman, 822 Balsam Lane.
Chance Parker, Fort Collins resident.
Tim Norman, Fort Collins resident.
Ken Crockett, 1700 Springfield Drive.
Michelle Palero, Fort Collins resident.
Beverly Hill, 3605 Mead Street.
Mayor Martinez asked Ms. Gillis about her references to the 990 cost of registrations on the State
website. Ms. Gillis stated the State of Colorado has business registrations through their website for
99¢ using a credit or debit card. She questioned why the City would set up an expensive database
to handle registrations.
Councilmember Hamrick asked how many people lived at the approximately 10,500 rental units.
Felix Lee, Director of Building and Zoning, stated such information was not readily available. He
stated an estimate could be an average of two residents per unit. City Manager Atteberry stated the
number would be 2.3.
Councilmember Hamrick stated figure seemed low. He stated renters were not necessarily students
and asked if there was anything in the ordinance that would target students. City Attorney Roy
replied in the negative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this ordinance would change the "three unrelated" ordinance. City
Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if this ordinance would make it easier to enforce the "three
unrelated" ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated the ordinance would probably have a neutral effect
on that enforcement.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about Attachment 1 (Lease Addendum and Acknowledgement
Form) and whether items 1 and 3 were redundant. City Attorney Roy stated those two items could
be combined.
Councilmember Hamrick asked if language in the ordinance would address health and safety issues
such as basement egress and other codes and ordinances. Lee stated Fort Collins had a rental
housing standard that addressed health and safety issues. Heffernan stated the rental registration
form required the landlord to check a box saying that he or she had read and understood the City's
rental housing standard and that a brochure would be provided to tenants. She stated the expectation
was that more tenants would be aware of the laws and that there would be more complaints and
requests for inspections.
Councilmember Hamrick asked about the normal process for handling complaints under the rental
housing standard. Lee stated the process depended on the severity of the issue. He stated the typical
process was to make an on -site inspection after a complaint was received and issuance of an order
to correct the violation.
525
February 15, 2005
Mayor Martinez asked if the insurance company would cancel coverage for a unit that did not have
smoke alarms or proper egress. He stated it appeared that the City was acting in the role of the
insurance company. He asked about the meaning of the language in Section 5-237 stating: "This
Article is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of the City by establishing
minimum standards governing the facilities, utilities, occupancy, repair and maintenance of rental
housing." Lee stated there were other provisions in the Code requring that the standard enforced
must relate to a threat to life, health or safety of the occupants or the property.
Mayor Martinez asked if the "repair and maintenance" required must be relevant to health and
safety. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. He stated requirement was in a separate
Division within the same Article.
Mayor Martinez asked about the language in Section 5-257 paragraph (a) stating: "Whenever
necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this Article whenever the
Director of Building and Zoning has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a building or
upon any premises any condition .... that the Director shall have recourse to every remedy
provided by law to secure entry, including an inspection warrant issued by the Municipal Court or
any other court pursuant to Rule 241." He asked about the wording relating to "reasonable" rather
than "probable" cause and asked if there was a difference in the two. City Attorney Roy stated the
reasonable cause standard did not apply to the warrant requirement. He stated "reasonable cause"
gave the right of inspection and that if consent to inspection was denied that one of the options was
to go to court. Ablao stated the "probable cause" standard applied to an inspection warrant.
Mayor Martinez asked why the language in the ordinance would not say "probable cause" instead
of "reasonable cause." Ablao stated "reasonable cause" allowed the inspector to request an
inspection and consent to enter for an inspection, and that if this was refused the City could develop
"probable cause" that there was a violation and to request a warrant from the court.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the City's interest in being able to identify a local contact
person or to serve notice and how efficient this program would be in addressing that interest. He
noted that the agenda material indicated that the expectation was for a relatively high participation
rate of about 70% for the first year and 90% ongoing. He noted that the agenda material indicated
that over 13,000 violation notices were sent and that about 11 % were returned because the owner
was not at the address to which the notice was sent. He asked if that 11% would be the same that
would be hard to get registered. Lee stated this would be a fairly accurate prediction. Heffernan
stated there was no way to know for certain..
Councilmember Kastein asked about recovery of costs for violations and if there could be a
"mandatory fee" attached to any kind of nuisance violation that would go toward enforcement or if
it would always be at the discretion of the judge. He stated his concern was getting money for
additional enforcement. Ablao stated that would be a surcharge. City Attorney Roy asked if the
intent would be earmark the fee for certain purposes.
526
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked a fee could be used more generally. City Attorney Roy stated the
judge set the schedule of fines and fees and that it would be possible to earmark a portion of the
fines collected for certain kinds of offenses and use that portion for particular purposes.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that had been considered in the past. City Attorney Roy stated the
fees collected went into the General Fund.
Mayor Martinez expressed a concern that enforcement needed to be kept "neutral" and not tied to
the budget. City Attorney Roy stated a portion of the fines for camera radar violations was
earmarked under the Code.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
Agenda Items #21 and #34 Postponed to March 1.2005
Mayor Martinez suggested that Council consider postponing agenda item #34 relating to out of City
utility service.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to postpone
agenda item #34 Items Relating to Out of City Utility Service and Pulled Consent agenda item #21
First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2005 Amending Section 2-31 of the City Code Pertaining to
Executive Sessions to March 1, 2005.
Councilmember Tharp stated item #21 could be dealt with quickly to allow staff to deal with the
matter on a timely basis. She asked if there was a sense of urgency on that item. City Attorney Roy
replied in the negative.
Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the motion and had a concern about scheduling
items on the agenda that would not be heard until later.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp
and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Continuation of Agenda Item #32 (Rental Registration)
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the lease addendum was part of the ordinance. City Attorney
Roy stated there was a reference to the addendum in paragraph 7 requiring the owner to provide it
to all tenants.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about part 3 of the lease addendum relating to compliance with
all applicable provisions of City and State law, noting that the City Code was over four inches thick
527
February 15, 2005
and that the State statutes were voluminous. City Attorney Roy stated most leases required the
tenants to comply with the law and that this addendum would reinforce that requirement.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated "all applicable" laws was very general wording. She stated there
was a statement relating to fines for over occupancy in the same document and asked if the
occupancy limits had been established. City Attorney Roy stated this related to the current
definition in the Code relating to no more than "three unrelated" occupants.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the purpose (Section 5-237) set out in the ordinance referenced
occupancy and other minimum standards and asked if those standards were all set out in the Code.
City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the ordinance should indicate where those standards would be
found. City Attorney Roy stated a purpose statement was to establish the legislative intent of the
enactment and that the details of the laws were in the various divisions of the Article.
Councilmember Weitkunat questioned the reference to occupancy standards when the continuation
of the "three unrelated" ordinance had not been decided.
Mayor Martinez stated the language related to existing laws.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this would be another law that would use the questionable
standard.
Councilmember Roy asked how long the City had worked with stakeholders on this issue.
Heffernan stated the stakeholders were brought together in the fall to discuss different options after
a summer outreach process. She stated there were 1,300 individual contacts with people who filled
out the survey or wrote letters to the Council.
Councilmember Roy noted that there were 23,000 CSU students and asked what kinds of plans CSU
had to work with the City to alleviate some of the strain on housing stock. City Manager Atteberry
stated there were no definitive plans at this stage and that CSU was interested in partnering with the
City to discuss student housing issues. He stated there had been an open dialogue with CSU and that
he would characterize the conversations as an interest in partnering on this long term issue.
Councilmember Roy asked if there was a lot more work to be done to partner with CSU. City
Manager Atteberry replied in the affirmative and stated he believed that CSU leadership was poised
for that partnership. He stated the work on this issue would take place over the coming decades.
Councilmember Roy noted that there would be a cost of $65 to start the registration program for an
individual property. He asked what the cost would be for maintaining the information once the
database was created if there were no complaints on a property and if the property was not sold. He
stated he would like to look at funding the program through the enforcement of violations and
through the sale of property rather than an ongoing fee to maintain data that did not change. He
stated he did not believe that it would cost $65 to maintain the data on a property if no changes had
528
February 15, 2005
to be made to that data. He stated the properties that had violations should help fund the program
more fully. Lee stated it was a policy decision on how the program should be funded and that there
was no mechanism at this point to allocate funds in this manner.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to see some more thought given to his suggestion prior
to Second Reading. He stated there had been some references by the speakers about how easy it was
to find landlords. He stated he had received information from Mr. Anderson giving an example of
how difficult it was to locate a landlord. An unidentified woman stated this example was for a
landlord that had five different mailing addresses, post office box listings and was not listed in the
phone book. She stated weeks went by before the situation could actually be abated.
Councilmember Roy stated the point was that it was often difficult to find the landlord.
Mayor Martinez stated he would like a copy of the information referenced by Councilmember Roy
to be provided to the entire Council. He asked if the agent would now have to live within 75 miles.
Heffernan stated the requirement was that the agent must live or have an office within 75 miles.
Mayor Martinez asked what would happen if the agent did not meet that requirement. Heffernan
stated the agent would not be considered to be a local agent.
Mayor Martinez asked if the intent was to make sure that the agent would be readily available for
contact. Heffernan replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez asked what would happen if the agent could not be contacted. Heffernan stated
the purpose of the local agent would be to expedite efficient service and to have someone who could
respond to the situation. She stated if the agent could not be contacted that there would be
difficulties in resolving the situation. Sowder stated the City would continue to locate the owner
utilizing the utility database and other sources and would contact the tenant.
Mayor Martinez noted that it would be difficult to issue a summons if the person could not be
contacted. City Attorney Roy stated if the City became aware under Subsection (5) of Section 5-263
that a person had failed to follow the registration requirements, including registering a local agent,
that a notice would be send and if the situation was not remedied within seven days it would
constitute a violation.
Mayor Martinez asked if the individual could then receive a summons if that person did not receive
the notice for some reason. City Attorney Roy stated the notice requirement went further than for
most violations of the Code i.e. this was one of the few provisions in the Code that required that a
notice be given before a violation actually existed and a summons could be issued. He stated the
failure to register someone as a local agent would be the violation.
Mayor Martinez asked if a registered agent would be in violation if the City could not contact the
agent for some reason. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative.
529
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Tharp stated some speakers believed that this ordinance did not address the health
and safety issues. She asked the staff to indicate the provisions of the ordinance that related to
health and safety issues. Lee stated the purpose as stated in the ordinance was "to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the people by establishing minimum standards governing facilities, utilities,
occupancy, repair and maintenance of rental housing to safeguard life or limb, health and properties
of persons affected by or subject to the provisions of this Article, and the public welfare through
regulation and control of the use, occupancy, location and maintenance of all rental housing within
the City."
Councilmember Tharp stated some speakers implied that this ordinance did not accomplish that
purpose. She stated it was her understanding that the ordinance had two purposes: to create an
accurate, up-to-date registry of rental units within the City to allow more effective enforcement with
regard to behavioral issues and other health and safety issues relating to rentals. Lee stated those
were the stated purposes.
Councilmember Tharp stated those seemed to be viable reasons for having registration and that the
ordinance addressed the two things that the Council asked the staff to address. She asked that staff
respond to the repeated comments by speakers that the information was available on landlords. She
asked how difficult it was to identify property owners without a rental database. Lee stated it was
often difficult (about 25% of the time) to locate property owners for enforcement of the rental
housing standards.
Councilmember Tharp asked if it would be helpful to the staff to have a database that was up-to-date
and included all the rentals. Lee replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Martinez stated Ms. Gillis quoted a staff person as saying that most of the time the violations
were taken care of and asked if this expensive process was needed. Sowder stated for the nuisance
violations enforced by Code Compliance that 94% compliance was achieved after notification. She
stated of the 13,542 notices sent last year that 4,495 (about 11 %) were returned in the mail, requiring
extra research and staff time and prolonging the time frame for correcting the problem.
Mayor Martinez asked if some were located through the City utility database. Sowder stated about
half were obtained through the utility database.
Mayor Martinez asked if the utility database had adequate information to indicate whether someone
was a renter, owner, or landlord. City Manager Atteberry stated such information was not available
from the utility database.
Mayor Martinez stated he had been notified when the utilities were turned off on property he owned.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated for the property she owned when there was a turn-off notice she
was notified because she was responsible for the utilities. She stated she believed that the Utility
did know who owned the property.
Mayor Martinez stated he believed that the data was available somewhere.
530
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she believed that the Utility did know who was responsible for
the utilities. Heffernan stated a November memo from the Utility indicated that the Utility could
only obtain such information if the owner contacted the Utility. She stated many property managers
registered with the Utility because they wanted to receive such notifications.
Mayor Martinez suggested looking into that further. City Manager Atteberry stated he would look
into that and report back to the Council.
Mayor Martinez stated information had been received regarding the software options. He stated
Option A would cost $280,100 and asked how many violations there were in the last several years.
Sowder stated in 2004 the City sent 542 first violation notices in response to the tickets on the
property, 70 second violation notices, 5 third violation notices and one fourth violation notice.
Mayor Martinez asked at what point people were taken to court. Sowder stated there were three
hearings before the City Manager's Office settled by stipulation agreement and that there had not
been any situations processed to the civil suit level.
Mayor Martinez asked if the 542 first violation notices were all sent to property owners. Sowder
stated she did not have that information.
Mayor Martinez stated he would be interested in knowing how many property owners were
represented in that figure. He stated without this $280,000 package that there were only three
hearings and good compliance.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the notices sent. Sowder stated the notices
were sent to the available addresses and that tenants and property managers also received notices.
Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification that when the notices that came back that notice was
not served on the property owners because they never received it. Sowder stated there were three
different notices for one violation i.e. owner, tenant and property manager. She stated she believed
that there were no situations in which all three notices came back.
Councilmember Tharp asked if staff was certain that at least someone would receive notice. Sowder
stated she could not be sure and that when notices came back research was required to try to obtain
better information.
Mayor Martinez asked how many rental units there were. Lee stated there were about 10,000 four-
plex and smaller rental units that were not part of an apartment complex.
Mayor Martinez asked if it was true that over 13,000 notices were sent when there were 10,000
rental units. Sowder stated notices were sent to both owner -occupied and rental properties. She
stated there was no way to distinguish between the two types of properties.
Mayor Martinez stated it seemed to him that the City should not be talking about "rental
registration" and should be talking about "problem registration" instead.
531
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No.
021, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Tharp stated rental registration might not be a perfect solution but that it would
address health and safety issues and the need for a database to deal more effectively with Code
violations and behavior problems. She stated she supported taking this "first step" and moving
forward on the issue.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff for its work on this issue. He stated he believed that the City
Council should do what was best for citizens and families. He stated rentals were "businesses" that
were "subsidized by the quality of life degradating in these neighborhoods" and renters coming in
to pay rent "below market" when there were more occupants than allowed by the law. He stated the
City spent 10 months working with stakeholders on this issue. He stated he would continue to work
toward creating structures that were safe and sound and protecting families and neighborhoods. He
stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this discussion dealt with a variety of issues. She questioned what
problem the Council was trying to fix. She stated it appeared based on the figures presented by staff
that this "problem" centered on three nuisances i.e. a half million dollar system was being set up to
find 700 names and addresses. She stated the question was what problem the City was trying to fix
at what cost. She stated she did not believe that this ordinance would contribute to "harmony" in
neighborhoods. She stated she believed that the issue did not relate just to rental properties and that
the ordinance was "discriminatory." She stated this would be a half million dollar "fix" that would
not be what was needed. She stated this was the wrong answer to the wrong problem. She
questioned looking at a half million dollar program in times of budget "crunch." She stated she did
not believe that all sides "had been at the table" to discuss the issue. She stated many speakers
(property owners) indicated that they were interested in working on neighborhood problems. She
stated there were other choices available to address the problem through the courts and through
enforcement. She stated the possibility of "voluntary" work by property owners, renters and
investors on the issue had been "glossed over." She stated this issue was "divisive" and that she
would not support the motion.
Councilmember Tharp stated this was a complex issue and that the City had been attempting to deal
with it for at least several years. She stated significant improvements had been made in enforcing
existing ordinances and that there had been "incremental" improvements in other ordinances. She
squestioned whether the Council was "serious" about an attempt to "beef up" how the City could
enforce existing nuisance ordinances. She stated rental registration program would be less than
perfect but would provide a database for future discussions, would be an opportunity to educate
tenants and landlords and would address health and safety issues. She stated this would be one step
closer to dealing with the actual problem. She stated the City would continue to work toward
realistic workable solutions to the outdated "three unrelated" ordinance. She stated some had said
that this was "anti university" or "anti business" and that this was not the case. She stated if nothing
was done the "core city" surrounding the university would become a "slum." She stated the most
important factor was that people considered where they lived to be their "homes" and that when
neighborhoods deteriorated home owners decided to sell. She stated the City needed its older
532
February 15, 2005
neighborhoods and that to "do nothing" was "unwise." She stated the Council would continue to
work on related issues and needed to move ahead.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was the "culmination" of a lengthy debate. He stated staff had
"delivered" what was requested by the Council. He stated he did not believe that the $65 startup fee
and $35 ongoing fee was too high or too intrusive. He stated the arguments that he found to be the
most salient were that a rental is a "business" and that there was a need to protect families. He stated
he was troubled by several things in the ordinance. He stated having a database readily accessible
would allow people to "delineate" which homes were rentals or owner -occupied and that he did not
believe that was the intent. He stated the issue was the need to address "behavior" and that this did
not necessarily apply only to rentals. He stated there was a "climate of disrespect for the law" and
that he believed that this was because the proper amount of enforcement had not been done in the
past. He stated during the last budget cycle the three Councilmembers who opposed the Public
Nuisance Ordinance were strong advocates of increasing the police force by two officers. He stated
one of his main goals in advocating that was neighborhood work. He stated the rest of the Council
defeated adding money to the budget for more officers. He stated in the last about $250,000 was
allocated from the General Fund to affordable housing. He stated this was ad hoc money from
reserves that could have been taken from the Affordable Housing Fund instead. He stated the money
could have been used for enforcement. He stated the City needed to "beef up" the police force as
the first step to address this issue. He stated this ordinance was another effort to try to address the
fact that there was not enough enforcement. He stated he would continue to focus on the
enforcement issue. He stated he did not believe that rental registration would be an efficient system
and that the people who were currently hard to contact would be the same people who would be hard
to register under the new system. He stated he would not support the ordinance.
Councilmember Hamrick stated there was a problem with rentals in the community. He stated the
City did not yet have a "good handle" on that problem. He stated the purpose of rental registration
was to register all rentals within the community to find out the magnitude of the problem. He stated
the goals of rental registration would be to increase the efficacy of nuisance code enforcement
through accurate contact information, provide a local contact and better information sharing, and
educate all parties about rental housing standards and other City codes. He stated the cost would
be $33 per year for each unit. He stated he would support the ordinance.
Mayor Martinez stated about 13,000 notices were sent out and that there were an estimated 10,500
rentals. He stated it was unclear how many rentals versus homeowners received notices. He stated
some people could continue to "dodge the system." He stated this program would not be "financially
smart" and would not be efficient. He stated this ordinance would give the appearance that the City
was "targeting" and discriminating against university students. He stated this ordinance was divisive
and that the Council should figure out what was "fair and balanced" for everyone in the community.
He stated in the past staff had properly based actions on complaints. He questioned the high cost
of the software. He stated this ordinance would cause bigger problems and that the economic impact
was not clearly understood. He stated for this to work there would have to be community buy -in to
address "problem neighbors" rather than just "problem rentals." He stated this would be more fair
and equitable. He stated he still favored discussion of a Campus West police substation and
533
February 15, 2005
continuing discussions with CSU about the issues. He stated he could not support pouring a half
million dollars into the problem to just "feel good" about doing something.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays:
Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS.
City Manager Atteberry asked for confirmation on the next steps. He stated on March 8 the
economic study results on the "three unrelated" issue would be available for study session
discussion. He stated the April 26 Study Session would focus on the "three unrelated" ordinance
and that First Reading of an ordinance would be scheduled for May 3 and Second Reading would
be scheduled for May 17.
Meeting Continued
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to continue the
meeting. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein,
Martinez, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Tharp.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2005-017
Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal of the
December 2, 2004, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board Regarding the
Feather Ridge Project Development Plan #20-04A. Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AtitsFebruary1, 2005hearing, the City Council overturned(4-3; Nays: Councilmembers Martinez,
Tharp, and Weitkunat) the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the Feather Ridge Project
Development Plan and remanded one aspect of the appeal, a request for modification of the
standard pertaining to the separation from residential areas contained in Section 3.8.27 of the Land
Use Code, to the Planning and Zoning Board for reconsideration. The Planning and Zoning Board
will consider the modification request at its February 17, 2005 public hearing.
City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Board's action based on itsf nding that the Board
failed to interpret and apply Section 3.8.27 (F) of the Land Use Code. As to that criterion, the
Council found that vehicle access to the reception center would be provided directly from a public
street. The remand to the Board would be limited to reconsideration of the request for a
modification ofstandard to theseparation requirements. Ifthe modification ofstandard is approved
by the Board, the approval will constitute approval of the Project Development Plan and, if such
534
February 15, 2005
modification is denied by the Board, such denial will constitute denial of the Project Development
Plan. "
City Attorney Roy explained that the purpose of the Resolution was to bring to closure the appeal
proceedings and to ensure that the record accurately reflected Council's decisions and the reasons
for that decision. He stated there had been some discussion about whether the Resolution did that.
He reviewed the proposed Resolution and noted that Council had received a revised Resolution. He
stated the Resolution stated the grounds for appeal were adequate and conformed to the requirements
of the Code; that the Council found that the Board did not err by failing to conduct a fair hearing;
that except with regard to a matter remanded to the Board that the Council found that the Board
failed to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Code with regard to a particular section
of the Land Use Code dealing with direct access to an arterial street; that the Council overturned the
Board's determination that the project did not have direct access to an arterial and instead found that
it did; that the Council found that the plan otherwise complied with all of the performance standards
in addition to the one that the Council found with regard to direct access, except for a standard
which was the subject of an application for a modification; that the Council had remanded the matter
of the modification to the Board for the sole purpose of reconsidering that request for a modification;
that if the modification of standards was approved by the Board that such approval would constitute
approval of the plan, and that conversely if the modification was denied by the Board that such
denial would constitute a denial of the plan; and that if the request for modification was withdrawn
that such withdrawal would result in approval of the plan. He stated the attorney for some of the
parties -in -interest opposed to the appeal had filed a motion for reconsideration of the Council's
decision and that the attorney for applicant had filed a response to that. He suggested that the
parties -in -interest be allowed time to speak to both the request for reconsideration and the wording
of the Resolution and that the Council then address the request to reconsider its decision and, if that
was approved, to hear additional presentations and argument on the merits of the appeal, or, if it was
denied, to discuss whether to adopt this Resolution as presently worded or as amended.
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated for the record that staff did some follow-up
upon the reconsideration/clarification request from the neighborhood's legal counsel regarding the
zoning on the southerly 30 feet of the private drive accessing the development site. He stated the
City zoning map was incorrect. He stated when the Hewlett-Packard campus was annexed into the
City it was zoned I -Industrial and that upon adoption of the Harmony Corridor Plan the zoning that
was applied was HC - Harmony Corridor. He stated when the zoning map was created at the time
of adoption of City Plan that there was a transfer from the old engineering standard zoning map to
one that administered through the GIS Department. He stated when the transfer occurred there was
an error made so that the zoning line was incorrectly shown on the City zoning map. He stated his
testimony at the appeal hearing had indicated that the southerly 30 feet was zoned HC and that this
was correct. He stated the motion for reconsideration included a letter from the City Zoning
Department confirming that the property was zoned R-L and that this was incorrect.
City Attorney Roy suggested that when the parties addressed the Council that they be given an
opportunity to say whether they believed that this was significant or not.
535
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked why the Council must consider the motion for reconsideration. City
Attorney Roy stated in the event of a court appeal of the Council's decisions that it was advisable
to take a position as to whether the Council wanted to reconsider or not.
Mayor Martinez invited parties -in -interest to speak and noted that new exhibits or evidence would
not be received. He stated this was not a rehearing.
Jim Martell, attorney representing the applicants (appellants), stated he was responding to the
opponents' motion for reconsideration. He stated there was no provision in the Land Use Code or
City ordinances allowing for a motion for reconsideration. He stated it should be denied on that
grounds alone. He stated the opponents had raised the issue of the chain of title on acquisition of
the 30 feet. He stated Julie Baker and Wendy Meyer currently owned the 30 feet. He stated the
second issue raised by the opponents was that the right-of-way requirement of 60 feet would be
dedicated to the City. He stated the subdivision plat would dedicate that right-of-way to the City
to clear up this entire issue. He stated this further established that Ms. Baker and Ms. Meyer owned
the 30 feet and were willing to dedicate it at some future time. He stated the road location was
clearly presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and to the City Council as part of the appeal as
was the need for the southerly 30 feet. He stated this 30 feet was clearly included within the
Hewlett-Packard annexation and was clearly zoned I -Industrial. He stated when the zoning was
changed the 30-foot strip was clearly made HC. He stated the Resolution as drafted stated what the
City Council intended but that it might be helpful to make a clearer statement. He stated the
Resolution should clearly state that the plan was approved and that the modification was remanded
for Planning and Board reconsideration. He stated you could only modify something if it had been
approved and that "implicit" in Council's motion was approval of the plan. He requested that the
Resolution state that as well.
Brad March, attorney representing the Woodland Park neighbors, stated the roadway was acquired
in a transaction separately from the acquisition of this property. He stated it was a "separate piece
of property." He stated the roadway would be located on apiece of property that everyone agreed
was owned by the public and that it was not "direct." He stated this was not the same piece of
property and that the drive area was on property owned by the City. He stated the 30 feet to the
north was owned by Feather Ridge and that the southerly 30 feet where the driveway would be
located was owned by the City. He stated in addition there was confusion about the zoning. He
stated the Zoning Administrator on two different occassions advised the opponents that it was
located in the RL zone. He stated this was indicative of the fact that this was a separate piece of
property. He stated if the actual development was located in the Urban Estates zone and the
driveway was located in a different zone that this was not "direct" because it was passing through
another zone to get to the arterial as required. He requested some kind of clarification. He stated
he understood that the Council wanted to remand the issues that were not before the Council to the
Planning and Zoning Board to reconsider. He stated he understood that the Council felt that the
issue that was before it was the issue related to direct access. He stated the motion was framed in
such a way to remand the modification for reconsideration. He stated there were a number of other
issues that the Council never took into account in conjunction with its consideration i.e. the
buffering issue and fencing, and that these issues were not specifically looked at by the Planning and
Zoning Board because the Board could not resolve the direct access issue. He stated the Council
536
February 15, 2005
and Planning and Zoning Board had not adequately looked at the buffering issue. He suggested that
in order to approve the project there must be consideration of all of the various components of
Section 3.8.27. He stated with regard to Section 3.8.27(D) relating to the 300 foot limit that the
record was "extremely confusing." He stated the staff concluded that a modification was needed.
He stated the neighborhood was asking that if the Council was going to remand the matter to the
Board that it be remanded to look at all the questions (buffering, 300-foot limit) with the exception
of the direct access issue, which had been resolved.
Mayor Martinez asked Council whether there was a desire to reconsider.
Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to grant the motion for
reconsideration and clarification filed by Brad March. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:
Councilmember Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION FAILED.
City Attorney Roy stated Council needed to decide whether the matter was (1) being remanded to
the Board as stated in the draft Resolution solely to consider the modification of standards with the
finding that all of the other criteria had been met, and if that modification of standards was approved
or withdrawn that the plan was approved, or (2) whether the matter was being remanded to the
Board to not only look at the modification of standards but to also focus on the criteria which they
did not look at because they denied the application for modification to determine whether the criteria
had been met. He stated if the Council chose the first option that the finding was being made based
upon the record and the staff recommendation and explanation that the criteria had been met.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated the Planning and Zoning Board denied it not only on the
basis of it failing to have obtained approval of the two modifications and also on the basis of the
other performance standards i.e. that there was no direct access. He stated the Board did look at the
other performance standards and concluded that it failed the direct access standard.
City Attorney Roy asked if the Board ever made a finding as to whether the other performance
standards had been met.
Eckman stated the denial was based upon lack of direct access and lack of approval of the
modifications that were requested.
City Attorney Roy stated the question for the Council was whether there was enough information
in the record to find that the other criteria had been met, in which case it would hinge on the
modification of standards, or whether the Council wanted the Board to look again at the other
criteria besides direct access and the modification.
Councilmember Kastein stated the Council approved a motion that defined "direct" and determined
that the project did meet that standard.
537
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Resolution 2005-017 as drafted.
Councilmember Tharp asked about the meaning of the language in the Resolution stating: "If the
request for a modification standard is withdrawn ...." She asked how the modification could be
withdrawn unless the building would be moved. Gloss stated the project could conceivably go
forward with the second phase of the development relating to the larger of the two proposed
buildings and not use the existing farmhouse for a small scale event center. He stated the farmhouse
could in that scenario be used as a residence or office or some other type of use. Eckman stated it
might not comply if used as a residence because it would be too close to the new event center. He
stated the building could potentially be moved or demolished.
Councilmember Hamrick stated this was appealed to the Council on specific criteria but not all
inclusive criteria. He stated Mr. March's memo indicated that the Planning and Zoning Board never
made findings that the other 11 performance standards. He stated remanding to the Board on the
basis of these two criteria and not having the Board look at the other criteria would limit the Board's
discussion.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the assumption was that the appellants pulled out the two criteria
with which the project did not comply. She stated it appeared that the other criteria were not part
of the problem. She stated she believed that other criteria were addressed by the Planning and
Zoning Board. She stated an appeal was always on specifics and that the Council needed to
determine if what came forward in the appeal had been addressed.
City Attorney Roy stated when the Planning and Zoning Board approved a development it typically
did not make findings with regard to each of the applicable criteria. Gloss stated the staff did an
analysis based on the development's compliance with use and design standards and made a
recommendation to the Board. He stated the Board then typically adopted this as findings of fact.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the Planning and Zoning Board pulled the two items with which
they were dissatisfied (direct access and modification of standards for the buffer) and that it was
typical that the Board did not specifically indicate that it was satisfied with the rest. Eckman stated
there were two modifications at the time of Board review including the sidewalk, which was
withdrawn. He stated the Board did not address each individual performance standard and that this
was usually not done. He stated if the Board decided to approve a plan that it made a general finding
that the plan complied with all applicable criteria of the Land Use Code. He stated if the Board
decided to deny a plan that it cited the criteria which had not been met by section number.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that in case the Board cited the two criteria relating
to direct access and the buffer as the reason for denial. Gloss replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tharp asked if the Council could assume that the other criteria were not in question.
Gloss stated this was a reasonable assumption based on the record. City Attorney Roy stated the
Council had the prerogative to find that the standards were met and that the plan was approved if
the modification of standard was approved, or to ask the Board to take a look at particular standards.
538
February 15, 2005
Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion and did not want to assume that
the Board had no other issues with the project. He stated the Board focused on the major issues and
might have other less visible issues with the project. He stated he would like the Board take another
look at the project.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Board heard this matter and that the Council needed to address
what came forward on appeal. She stated there were two issues on the appeal and that the whole
matter should not be reopened. She stated the Council resolved one of the issues and was asking
the Board to look at the other area.
Mayor Martinez stated the Council was the "finaljudge" on this matter and that the expectation was
that Council make a decision.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
ayor Z`
ATTEST:
%% % mm,
_ .\_
539