HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/18/2005-RegularOctober 18, 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 ofthe City ofFort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 18, 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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Sara Almon, 1200 East Stuart Street #38, expressed concerns about funding for Dial -a -Ride and
Transfort.
Greg Snyder, 619 Bear Creek Drive, thanked the City for the prompt response to his concern that
there needed to be designated motorcycle and scooter parking in the Old Town area. He also
expressed concerns about adding another recyclable material to trash pickups and noted that this
would contribute to more trash truck traffic. He asked the City to work with the City of Loveland
to find a way to process garbage without a landfill operation.
Marcia Fitzhom, 2101 Rollingwood Drive, expressed concerns regarding transit funding.
Jack Harper, 6500 Constellation Drive, opposed the proposed Southwest Enclave annexation.
Patti Marqui Hilker, Consumer Advocate for the Alliance for the Mentally Ill, supported funding for
transit.
Rob Stansbury, 1301 Robertson Street, encouraged voters to vote "yes" on Building on Basics
(Ballot Issue 2A).
Kathleen Regan, 411 Park Street, supported funding for transit and paratransit services.
Don Brookshire, Eastpoint Studio, requested that the October 4 Council decision on the Hellenic
Plaza rezoning be rescinded to allow an opportunity for the project to be presented to the Council.
He stated the applicant was unable to attend that meeting.
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, encouraged a "yes" vote on Building on Basics and suggested
a future quarter -cent sales tax for neighborhoods.
353
October 18, 2005
Selona Winfield, 411 Park Street, stated Dial -a -Ride never showed up for a scheduled pickup at the
Lincoln Center. She asked that the City continue funding Dial -a -Ride.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Roy asked staff to explain the cuts to Dial -a -Ride in the proposed budget. City
Manager Atteberry stated Dial -a -Ride would receive 93% of its current funding in the recommended
budget. He stated he would provide additional information to the Council and Ms. Regan.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated the agenda would stand as published.
Councilmember Ohlson withdrew Item 912, Items Related to the Issuance of City offort Collins
Downtown Development Authority Tar Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, from the Consent
Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Aporoval of the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2005.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2005, Approroriatine Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer ofApprooriated
Amounts Between Funds or Projects.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2005,
appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds, and
authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City Charter permits the
City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves.
The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as
a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. Additionally, it authorizes the City
Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon
recommendation of the City Manager provided the purpose for which the transferred funds
are to be expended remains unchanged; or the purpose for which they were initially
appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project
account in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the
purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even
though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
354
October 18, 2005
Second Reading of Ordinance No 114 2005 Repealing and Reenacting Chanter 27 of the
City Code Regarding Vegetation.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2005, will
make a number of changes to Chapter 27 of the Code (Vegetation). These changes are
designed to: (1) tighten up definitions and verbiage; (2) update titles; (3) update the list of
trees and shrubs citizens cannot plant; (4) allow citizens adjacent to alleys to prune, without
a permit, trees or shrubs that are on City right-of-way in the alley; (5) modify the licensing
procedure for commercial arborists, including setting insurance requirements at today's
industry standards; (6) clarify the right of the City Forester or his/her designee to enter
private property not just to inspect trees, but also to trim or remove trees that pose a danger
to the public; (7) better define vegetation clearance standards for streets, sidewalks and other
City owned property and who is responsible for mitigating these clearance issues; (8) modify
the service of notice process so that it is more in line with those in other codes that are
enforced by the City's Code Enforcement officials; (9) make the citizen appeal process for
code violations less cumbersome; and (10) alter the assessment of claims against property
owners so that they are more in line with what other City departments do.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2005, Designating the Blanchard/Bates House and
Garage, 1201 Laporte Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
The owners of the property, Marian and Kurt Schwabauer, are initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Blanchard/Bates House and Garage. The property
qualifies for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Preservation Standards (1) and
(3). The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of
construction, and contributes to the historical and architectural significance of Fort Collins.
An excellent example of the Classic Cottage architectural style, the brick dwelling remains
relatively unchanged, with very good individual integrity. For over 100 years, this quaint
Classic Cottage has continuously added to the historic nature of the area. The property also
contains a notable single car wooden garage, with a very interesting and unusual garage door
and historic hardware. The garage exhibits excellent integrity, and would likely qualify for
Landmark designation in its own right.
Ordinance No. 115, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2005.
355
October 18, 2005
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2005 Extending the Terms of a Non -Exclusive
Franchise By the City of Fort Collins to Comcast of California/Colorado LLC its Successors
and Assigns for the Right to Make Reasonable Use of and Erect. Construct Operate and
Maintain Through the Public Ri is -of -way, Easements and Other Public Property Any
Equipment Necessary and Appurtenant to the Operation and Maintenance of a Cable System
and the Provision of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City.
The current Cable Franchise with Comcast of California/Colorado, LLC ("Comcast") will
expire on November 2, 2005. Much progress has been made in the franchise renewal
negotiations; however a few items remain unresolved. This extension will maintain the
terms and conditions of the existing Franchise for approximately four months.
Ordinance No. 116, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2005.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2005, Authorizing the Extension of the Banking and
Depository Services Agreement with First National Bank for the Year 2006.
The First National Bank of Fort Collins was selected by a competitive process to provide
depository and banking services in 2000. The City has contracted with the First National
Bank of Fort Collins for the last five years.
Recent changes in the Finance Department have made it extremely difficult to complete
another competitive process for depository and banking services prior to the expiration of the
current contract on December 31, 2005. Staff is requesting that Council approve an
extension of the current agreement for an additional year to allow sufficient time and
resources to complete a competitive process in 2006.
First National Bank of Fort Collins has agreed to provide services for 2006 at the same unit
costs for services as originally bid in 2001 with the exception of lock box service cost. The
lock box cost will increase from $0.14 to $0.145 per item, an approximate increase of $3,000
annually. Under the current contract the City pays First National Bank approximately
$250,000 annually depending on the number of transactions processed.
Ordinance No. 117, 2005, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2005.
12. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2005, an Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, Dated Their Delivery
Date, in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,890,000 for the Purpose of Financing
356
October 18, 2005
Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of
Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on
and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption of the Bonds.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.121, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements in the Downtown Area of Fort Collins,
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds And Appropriating
Expenditures from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund to
Make the 2005 Payment on the Bonds.
The City of Fort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA") to make
desired improvements in the downtown area. The ordinances authorize the issuance of
$1,890,000 in short-term bonds to pay for the projects described below.
1. Old Town Lofts (SE comer of College and Oak) $ 450,000
2. Cherry Street Lofts (300 block of Cherry) $ 300,000
3. River Infrastructure Study $ 200 000
4. Aggie Theater $ 25,000
5. Cherry Street Station (100 Block of Cherry) $ 184,720
6. Oak Street Plaza Renovation $ 350,000
7. Holiday Decorations and Ice Rink $ 284,000
8. Miscellaneous Projects and Bond Issuance Expenses $ 96,280
TOTAL: $1,890,000
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122,2005, Desi ng atina the Beebe Clinic, 605 South College
Avenue, Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
City Code.
The owner of the property, William Lightfoot, and contract owner, Jay Stoner, are initiating
this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Beebe Clinic. The building retains
excellent physical integrity and is judged to be both architecturally and historically
significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standards (1), (2), and (3). The building is an
excellent and locally rare example of the Art Moderne Style in Fort Collins. Character
defining features include its flat roof with parapet, stucco wall material, and glass block and
corner steel casement window details. In addition to its outstanding architectural value, the
building served from 1939 to 1987 as the Beebe Clinic, a well -recognized and much noted
element of Fort Collins' mid -town landscape. Dr. Nathan L. Beebe, himself, was also a
noteworthy Fort Collins resident, contributing his services to the medical, business, and civic
communities for more than a half -century.
357
October 18, 2005
14. Resolution 2005-112 Consenting to the Appointment of the Larimer County Municipal
Representative to the South Platte Basin Roundtable in Accordance with Colorado Revised
Statutes Section 37-75-104.
In 2005 the Colorado General Assembly enacted House Bill 05-1177, known as the
"Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act", which adopted certain new statutory language,
including Section 37-75-104, Colorado Revised Statutes, which creates permanent water
basin roundtables in Colorado's eight water basins, including the South Platte Basin, in which
Fort Collins is located. Section 37-75-104(4)(a)(II) provides that each basin roundtable shall
include one municipal representative for each county located within that basin, to be
appointed jointly by the governing bodies of all municipalities within the county and the
basin.
City of Fort Collins staff has conferred with staff from the City of Loveland and has agreed
to recommend and request that the City Council approve the appointment of Larry Howard,
Senior Civil Engineer with the City of Loveland Department of Water and Power, to serve
as the Larimer County municipal representative to the South Platte Basin Roundtable in
accordance with Section 37-75-104(4)(a)(II).
15. Routine Easement.
Easement for construction and maintenance of public utilities from Black Badger, LLC, for
underground existing electric system, located at 1726 West Mulberry.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2005, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated
Amounts Between Funds or Projects.
8. Second Readine of Ordinance No 114 2005 Repealing and Reenacting Chanter 27 of the
City Code Regarding Vegetation.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115. 2005, Desimatin2the Blanchard/Bates House and
Garage, 1201 Laporte Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2005 Extending the Terms of a Non -Exclusive
Franchise By the City of Fort Collins to Comcast of Califomia/Colorado LLC its Successors
358
October 18, 2005
and Assigns for the Right to Make Reasonable Use of and Erect. Construct Operate and
Maintain Through the Public Rights -of -way, Easements and Other Public Property Any
Equipment Necessary and Appurtenant to the Operation and Maintenance of a Cable System
and the Provision of Cable Services to Citizens Within the City.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2005, Authorizing the Extension of the Banking and
Depository Services Agreement with First National Bank for the Year 2006.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2005, an Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, Dated Their Delivery
Date, in the Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,890,000 for the Purpose of Financing
Certain Capital Improvements and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of
Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on
and Any Premium Due in Connection with the Redemption of the Bonds.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements in the Downtown Area of Fort Collins,
Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Funds And Appropriating
Expenditures from the Downtown Development Authority Debt Service Fund to
Make the 2005 Payment on the Bonds.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2005, Desi ng ating the Beebe Clinic, 605 South College
Avenue, Fort Collins. Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
City Code.
19. Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and Other Neighborhood Quality of Life Issues
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Fort
Collins Land Use Code Relating to Residential Occupancy Limits.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article VI of the
City Code Relating to Rental Housing. (Option A - Without Registration).
Ka
359
October 18, 2005
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article VI of the
City Code Relating to Rental Housing. (Option B - With Registration).
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to
Court Referees.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to
General Penalties.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the
City Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council would consider the item withdrawn from the Consent
Calendar at this point rather than at the end of the meeting. The consensus was in favor of
considering the item at this point in the meeting.
(Secretary's Note: The following item was considered prior to Council's motion and vote on the
Consent Calendar.)
Items Related to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown
Development Authority Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Ordinance No. 120, 2005, authorizes the issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown
Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds in the amount of
$1,890,000 for the purpose of financing certain capital improvements and capital projects and
pledges certain incremental ad valorem tax revenues to pay theprincipal, interest and any premium
due in connection with the redemption of the bonds.
Based on updated projections oftax increment revenue, the Downtown Development Authority Debt
Service Fund holds approximately $2, 000, 000 of unreserved available fund balance which is
sufficient to meet all required debt service payments and reserve requirements through 2005.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2005, an Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the Aggregate
360
October 18, 2005
Principal Amount of$1, 890, 000 for the Purpose ofFinancing Certain Capitallmprovements
and Capital Projects; and Providing for the Pledge of Certain Incremental Ad Valorem Tax
Revenues to Pay the Principal of, Interest on and Any Premium Due in Connection with the
Redemption of the Bonds.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2005, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of
CityofFort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2005A, for the Purpose of Making Certain Capital
Improvements in the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Funds And Appropriating Expenditures from the Downtown
Development Authority Debt Service Fund to Make the 2005 Payment on the Bonds.
The City ofFort Collins created the Downtown Development Authority ("DDA') to make desired
improvements in the downtown area. The ordinances authorize the issuance of$1,890,000 in short-
term bonds to pay for the projects described below.
1. Old Town Lofts (SE corner of College and Oak) $ 450, 000
2. Cherry Street Lofts (300 block of Cherry) $ 300, 000
3. River Infrastructure Study $ 200,000
4. Aggie Theater $ 25,000
5. Cherry Street Station (100 Block of Cherry) $184, 720
6. Oak Street Plaza Renovation $ 350,000
7. Holiday Decorations and Ice Rink $ 284, 000
8. Miscellaneous Projects and Bond Issuance Expenses $ 96,280
TOTAL: $1,890,000
BACKGROUND
1. Old Town Lofts. DDA commitment: $450, 000. This project is located at the southeast
corner of South College and East Oak.
Estimated project cost is $2, 705, 000 with facade and right-of-way improvements constituting almost
$795,000 of the total. Annual tax increment has been estimated at $51,000 that, over a six year
collection period generates $306,000, well short of the cost of the facade and right-of-way
improvements.
Because 75 percent of the finished building is residential, the tax impact is considerably less than
if the structure was entirely commercial. The Board has considered that aspect in its deliberations
of other residential projects it has agreed to fund. Staffs recommendation is to acquire a facade
easement for $450, 000.
361
October 18, 2005
2. Cherry Street Lofts. DDA commitment: $300,000. This project has been to the DDA three
times and under different names.
The owner's request was $372, 000 of an estimated $408, 000 in qualifying improvements (i.e. right-
of-way and facades). This is about 21.5 percent ofconstruction cost ($1,729,541)and 12.5 percent
of the estimated market value ($2,980,388) of the completed project. Market value was estimated
by the Larimer County Assessor's Office. Increment calculated on the market value is $30,498
annually and totals $152, 490 through the five years the project will be on the tax roles.
Staff reviewed the proposed DDA funded improvements schedule and believes the maximum funded
amount should be $316,316. A DDA investment of $316,316 is 18.3 percent of total construction
cost and 10. 6percent of the estimated market value.
3. River District Infrastructure Study. DDA commitment: $200,000.
The City requested funding for detailed design/preliminary engineering and cost estimating for
transportation and utility improvements in the area between the Poudre River and Jefferson Street
and from College Avenue eastward to Lincoln. The project is intended to "determine and design
improvements to support existing conditions as well as provide a framework for future
development. " Estimated total cost of the project is $300, 000.
4. Aggie Theater. DDA Commitment: $25,000. Request for a facade easement.
The proposed redevelopment of the Aggie Theater breaks down as follows:
Interior and mechanical: $42, 000
Facade 138.000
Total $180,000
According to the figures provided in the proposal to the DDA, the improved project will generate
$29, 019 in tax increment a year based primarily on an increase in net income from $78, 613 annually
to $129,238 annually (using a 10.5 percent cap rate).
The request to the DDA was for $89,416 for a facade easement. DDA staff did not support the
request because it disagreed with the tax increment calculations. Staff recommended buying a
facade easement for no more than $17, 000.
5. Cherry Street Station. DDA Commitment: $184, 720. This residential project is just west
of North College Avenue and bounded in a triangular pattern by Union Pacific rail lines,
Burlington Northern rail lines, and Cherry Street.
362
October 18, 2005
This residential project proposes 15 dwelling units ranging in size from 2,174 square feet down to
1,137squarefeet. It will have threef oors and underground parking. Construction cost is estimated
at $5, 035,177. The DDA was asked to buy facade easements for $184, 720.
The County Assessor's office estimated the completed value of the building to be $6,531, 800 which
would generate a tax increment of $46,180. The completed building would generate tax increment
for four years bringing the total available to $184, 720.
DDA staff supported the request.
6. Oak Street Plaza. DDA commitment: $250, 000.
The City requested $300, 000 in DDA funding to help with the redevelopment of Oak Street Plaza.
The Board of Directors approved that amount and added an additional $50,000 so that the
improvements could be wrapped around the front of the Museum of Contemporary Art.
7. Holiday Decorations and Ice Rink. DDA commitment: $284,000. The projects seek to
upgrade holiday decorations for the central business district and acquire a portable ice rink
for downtown.
Holiday Decorations
The project will upgrade the existing tree lighting, banners for College and Mountain, decorations
for Old Town Square and fund a customer service program that includes greeters, performers, gift
wrapping, carriage rides, complimentary cider, cocoa, and cookies. Estimated cost is $84, 000.
Ice Rink
The DDA Board approved up to $200, 000 toward the purchase of a portable ice rink contingent
upon the completion of due diligence regarding availability, utility, and cost. Board commitment
is in conjunction with and dependent upon $100, 000 from the City and additional funding from the
private sector. The City has agreed to conduct the due diligence.
8. Miscellaneous Projects and Bond Issuance Expenses.
Miscellaneous Proiects
Minor projects that have been identified, and approved by the DDA Board, that will not exceed
approximately $56,000 in total.
Bond Issuance Expenses
Bond issuance costs have been estimated at approximately $40, 000. "
City Manager Atteberry indicated a member of the DDA Board and the DDA Executive Director
were present to answer any questions.
363
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson stated many of the listed projects involved facade improvements and that
this was a concern. He asked if the City and the DDA would consider some kind of formal process
for monitoring compliance with facade maintenance requirements. He stated the City was the "semi -
owner" of some of the facades. Chip Steiner, DDA Director, stated the DDA was open to ways to
monitor facade easements. He stated many of these easements ran beyond the technical life of the
DDA and would become the property of the City. He stated the City had a vested interest in making
sure that the facades were maintained. He stated the DDA would be open to developing a system
to monitor maintenance.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what would happen if a majority of the Council rejected the bonding
for some of these projects that were now 80% built. He asked if there was some way to ask for
Council approval of the bonding earlier in the process. He noted that there was one project in the
past he would not have supported. Steiner stated the agreements with the developers contained a
contingency clause indicating that if the Council did not appropriate the funds that the DDA was
under no further obligation. He stated there might be a need for a system to determine early in the
process whether there would be issues with the project. City Attorney Roy stated the issuance of the
bonds was at the discretion of the Council. He agreed that it would be helpful to hear Council input
earlier in the process so that all parties would know if the funding source was viable.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it was his understanding that one of the projects for which bonding
was requested was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Board and would be appealed to the City
Council. He asked if there was any conflict if the Council approved the bonding at this time when
a quasi-judicial appeal might come to the Council in the future. City Attorney Roy stated it was
important that everyone understand that the Council might deal with a project at several different
levels, such as participation in funding at a conceptual level and hearing an appeal at the project
planning level. He stated the key was for Council to remain objective in hearing the merits of such
an appeal even though participation in funding had already been approved.
Councilmember Ohlson stated one project had a "less than attractive" south side with no windows
and a north side with almost all windows. He expressed disappointment that this would not be a
"green -built" building and asked if the DDA Board had discussed this. Steiner stated the Board
discussed the window issue and that the design was related to the Fire Code. City Manager Atteber y
stated he would talk with the Fire Chief to obtain further information.
Councilmember Ohlson stated there appeared to be no plans for the building next door to be elevated
and that this appeared to be the only logical reason there would be no windows on the south side.
Councilmember Manvel asked why there were different periods of time for the projects. Steiner
stated there were periods as long as 20 years and that the length of time for the easement was
frequently related to the magnitude ofthe DDA's participation. He stated the other variable was how
long the project was going to be funded through the tax increment and that the tax increment would
ice;
October 18, 2005
sunset in 2011. He noted that there was a 20-year easement for the Cortina project. He stated if the
DDA disbanded the easements would go to the City.
Councilmember Manvel stated it appeared that all of the bonds were maturing in December of 2005
and asked for an explanation. Steiner stated the original tax increment district under State legislation
allowed for a 25-year tax increment collection period (2006). He stated the State subsequently added
five additional years to the life of a tax increment district for downtown development authorities.
He stated all of the bonds issued before the change in the tax increment district were all scheduled
to sunset on or before 2006.
Councilmember Manvel asked if bonds were being issued now that would mature in a few months.
Chuck Seest, Finance Director, stated the City was issuing an "overnight bond" and that it would be
paid off within the week. He stated the tax increment was collected by the Debt Service Fund and
that projects were expended from the Operations and Maintenance Fund. Steiner stated the money
was available to pay for these projects and that State law stated the only use for tax increment was
to service debt. He stated a "debt' must be created even though the money was available. He stated
this was an "overnight deal' and that the bank would charge no fees.
Councilmember Manvel stated that on each of these projects there was a project cost and the
expected increment. He stated it would be helpful in the future to have a comparison between the
projects when there were multiple projects. He stated he would like to receive information to help
him better understand each project.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 120, 2005 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated these were great projects. He stated he would like the DDA Board
to consider coming up with some responsible "green standards" for construction projects, including
renovations and new construction.
Councilmember Manvel stated he was impressed with these projects. He stated he hoped that
implementation of the project making downtown "fun" at Christmas be done with some "judgment."
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No.
121, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,
Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
365
October 18, 2005
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Hellenic Plaza Reconsideration Discussed
Mayor Hutchinson noted that Mr. Brookshire asked the Council to consider the Hellenic Plaza
decision. He asked if Council wanted to reconsider the decision. The consensus was to reconsider
under Other Business.
Consent Calendar Adopted
Councilmember Kastein commented that he objected to hearing the DDA item out of order. He
stated he did not have an opportunity to comment and noted that this set a precedent. He stated he
would like to have a vote when items were to be considered out of order.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
YYCItl�[ah�(��►I[�l_t .J a
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Hutchinson reported on the Legislative Review Committee's discussions regarding proposed
State legislation.
Items Relating to Occupancy Regulations and
Other Neighborhood Ouality of Life Issues, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed revisions to the occupancy regulations will require an additional Housing inspector,
including related commodities and contractual services costs, in order to effectively investigate and
enforce the code. The costs for the program would be $10, 500 in one-time and $73, 600 in ongoing
funds. Permit and inspection fees, surcharges and fines will ultimately cover a portion and possibly
all of these costs. Staff will provide an update on the actual costs of the program within one year
of the effective date.
krefool
October 18, 2005
If Council chooses to also enact a rental registration requirement for single- and two-family
dwellings, the cost to administer that program will be $57, 000 annually, plus an additional $98, 000
in one-time costs during the first year. This would coverall system costs, licensing fees, staff and
administrative expenses. The program is designed to be self-supporting; thus, these costs will be
covered in their entirety by registration fees.
In summary, the cost of both programs is:
Housing and Occupancy Compliance Program $ 10,500 one time
$ 73,600 ongoing
Rental Registration Program $ 98,000 one time
$ 57, 000 ongoing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Council meeting will focus on revisions to the City's current regulations prohibiting more than
three unrelatedpersonsfrom inhabiting a single dwelling unit. StafJ'isalso recommending revisions
to the Land Use Code related to boarding houses, and is presenting an option that would establish
a rental registration program for the purpose of identifying rental units within the city limits of Fort
Collins.
A.
C.
0
E.
First Reading of Ordinance No.123, 2005, Making Various Amendments to the Fort Collins
Land Use Code Relating to Residential Occupancy Limits.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article VI of the City Code
Relating to Rental Housing. (Option A - Without Registration).
TRI
First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 Amending Chapter 5, Article Hof the City Code
Relating to Rental Housing. (Option B - With Registration).
First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to Court
Referees.
First Reading of Ordinance No, 126, 2005, Amending the City Code Relating to General
Penalties.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2005, Amending Chapter 20, Article VIII of the City
Code Relating to Abatement of Public Nuisances.
367
October 18, 2005
BA
During several recent work sessions Council has discussed potential changes related to the City's
occupancy regulationfor dwelling units. Followingsessions in June andAugust 2005, Councilgave
direction forstaffto change the City's occupancy regulation to a civil infraction so as to make the
ordinance more enforceable.
Additionally, staff was instructed to bring forward revisions that:
• Limit occupancy to a family plus one caregiver or no more than 3 adults plus
dependents in all dwelling units;
• Continue the current practice ofaccepting boarding houses in zones where they are
allowed as long as they meet certain requirements and go through a public hearing
process; and
• Provide an option for a rental registration program.
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2005, AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE (Item A)
Definitions and Occupancy Limit
The most significant changes that would be made by adoption of this Ordinance are the changes to
the City's occupancy regulation. The Ordinance would keep the occupancy limit separate from the
definition offamily and make it easier to understand. It includes a new definition offamily and a
separate occupancy limit not based on relatedness.
Since the August 23, 2005, work session, staff has reviewed a variety of occupancy scenarios and,
as a result, has refined the definitions ofadult and provisions regarding occupancy limit. Adult has
been revised in order to allow for adult dependents (18 years of age or older) who are living with
their parents. Occupancy limit has also been refined so that the maximum occupancy per dwelling
unit shall be:
a. one family as defined in Section 5.1.2 and not more than one additional person; or
b. two adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one additional person.
The change to part 1 of the occupancy limitprovision replaces a prior reference to "caregiver "with
"additionalperson. " The change to part 2 replaces "three adults and their dependents, ifany"with
"two adults and their dependents, if any, plus not more than one additional person" in order to
address the concern of overcrowding by too many sets of dependents.
The occupancy limit would apply to all dwelling units: single family, duplex and multi family.
cM
October 18, 2005
2. Boarding House Provisions - Revisions to the Land Use Code
The other significant changes that would be made by this Ordinance have to do with boarding
houses. Boarding houses are permitted in numerous zone districts. This Ordinance contains
requirements that would have to be satisfied before a boarding house could be approved in any of
those zone districts: minimum square footage, parking, and for boarding houses in the L-M-Nzone
district only, a spacing requirement.
In addition to meeting the City's existing Rental Housing Standards, the minimum square footage
required would be 350 square feet per boarder plus an additional 400 square feet for an occupant
family. The dwelling would also be required to have two off-street parking spaces per three
bedrooms, plus one parking space per two employees.
As written, this Ordinance would also add a provision requiring a 300 foot separation between
boarding houses in the LMN zoning district. No separation requirement would be imposed on
boarding houses in other zone districts. Finally, the Ordinance would enable the City
decisionmaker to condition the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a boarding house on
compliance with the City's nuisance ordinances.
The occupancy limit would not apply to boarding houses. Rather, the combined requirements of
minimum square footage per occupant, and off-street parking spaces and, if Council so chooses,
spacing requirements would work collectively to limit the maximum number of occupants in a unit.
In the zones that allow boarding houses, applications for boarding houses are reviewed through a
formal public hearing process under the Land Use Code in all but the NCB and CL zone districts,
in which a boarding house is a use by right. In some districts this is a Type 1 hearing before a
hearing officer, and in others it is a Type 2 hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. Existing
boarding houses would be "grandfathered" if the owner can present a valid certificate of
occupancy. Otherwise, the owner would need to obtain a new certificate of occupancy under the
current requirements.
3. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation.
The Land Use Code requires that all potential changes to the Land Use Code be heard by the
Planning and Zoning Board before Council adopts changes. As a result, the Planning and Zoning
Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes at their last regular hearing, held September
15, 2005, and recommended approval of the proposed changes. The Board did not make a specific
recommendation regarding anyparticular spacing orseparation distance; however it notedthat the
four options presented to them should also be presented to Council. Those options were sent to
Council in September and are attached. It should be noted that the options sent to the Planning and
Zoning Board have since been modified to those discussed in this Agenda Item Summary.
369
October 18, 2005
ORDINANCE NO. 124,2005, AMENDING THE RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS (Item B)
Two versions of this Ordinance are being presented for Council's consideration. Option A makes
basic changes to the Rental Housing Standards to update the minimum standards, eliminate the
owner occupied "loophole" and change the penalty for an occupancy violation to a civil offense.
Option B contains these same changes and also adds a rental registration program.
Amendments to Rental Housing Code Qption A)
Rental Standards
These revisions to the Rental Housing Standards address commonly identified housing concerns that
effect renters' health and well-being. They include provisions that specify that a lack of general
maintenance of a structure, rat or vermin infestation, filth or contamination, or lack of ventilation
or illumination are considered a nuisance.
Additionally, provisions are included that correspond with the City's most recently adopted
International Codes and Dangerous Building Code, and the 2003 International Property
Maintenance Code. This assists enforcement staff in ensuring that minimal standards are
maintained in the rental community.
Pursuant to direction at the August 2005 work session, staff will be presenting additional proposed
amendments to the Rental Housing Standards in the first quarter of 2006
2. Certificate ofOccupanck
The Ordinance further provides that, in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy for a boarding
house, the Building Official could impose terms and conditions, including compliance with all state
and local laws and regulations or administrative orders. In determining whether to revoke or
suspend a previously issued certificate of occupancy, the official could consider any history or
pattern of the applicant and/or of the applicant's property managers or tenants.
3. Truth in Advertising
This new clause would require that any certificate allowing occupancy in excess of the limit (e.g.
in the case of a boarding house) be posted on the back of the front door of the dwelling.
Additionally, any advertisement, sign or other communication regarding the rental of a dwelling
would have to state the maximum permissible occupancy of the unit.
370
October 18, 2005
4. Violation and Penalties
With these changes, a violation of the occupancy limits would become a civil infraction. The burden
ofproof in a civil case is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt,
and adverse parties (those charged with a violation) can be called as witnesses in civil cases.
Penalties could include a fine of not less than $500 or more than $1, 000 for each violation; a court
order to comply with any conditions reasonably calculated to ensure compliance with the Code or
with the terms and conditions of any permit or certificate granted by the City; an injunction or
abatement order; and/or revocation or suspension of any certificate issued by the City with respect
to the dwelling.
Amendments to Rental Housing Code with Optionsfor Residential Rental Registration Program
(Option B)
Option B of the Ordinance adds a rental registration program in addition to the changes that would
be made by Option A. If Council adopts Option B, the Ordinance would establish procedures for
identifying rental units within the city limits of Fort Collins. Thepurposes of the rental registration
program would be to identify single-family and duplex rental units; educate all parties about the
various codes related to neighborhood quality of life, nuisances and rental property standards;
provide information that will support data -driven policy making; and increase the efficacy of
nuisance code enforcement through better information sharing.
Council members have expressed concerns about tenant privacy and the release of names and/or
other information to the general public. Tenant information would not be kept on f le by the City;
however, it would have to be provided to the City by the owner upon request by the City. The
database itself, like most records kept by the City, would be considered a public record and made
available for public inspection upon request. There are differences in opinion, however, as to
whether or not owner contact information should be readily available to any person with access to
the Internet. In an attempt to strike a balance, staff is proposing that a listing of the addresses of
those properties that have been registered be available online. The remaining information in the
database (owner name and contact information, etc.) would be available by request and would
involve payment of a small administrative fee, similar to requests for criminal background checks
or copies of police reports.
There are approximately 21,000 rental units within the Fort Collins city limits, of which an
estimated 5,000 are single-family and 1,500 are two-family dwellings which would fall under the
registration requirement. Elements of the proposed registration program would include the
following:
371
October 18, 2005
• Online registration and payment; mail -informs also available
• If the property owner is a corporation or business, a contact name would have to be
provided
• Information required:
1. Owner name, address and phone
2. Property address and type of unit
3. Agent or contact person, if applicable, including address and contact
information
• Term: annual renewal, or within 30 days upon change of ownership. Information
would have to be kept current.
• Fee: $40 per dwelling unit for initial registration. $20 per dwelling unit annually
thereafter. No charge for updates to information unless the property changes owner.
• Penaltyfor non-compliance: civil misdemeanor offense, punishable by a minimum
fine of $500 per violation.
Properties owned by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, those inspected annually for HUD
compliance, and other uses such as nursing homes and group homes would be exempt from the
registration requirement.
A detailed breakdown of the costs and revenues associated with the rental registration program is
attached. If Council wishes to move ahead with registration, staffmembers are prepared to conduct
a thorough outreach and education campaign. One tool would be that of a direct mailing to those
properties where the Assessors records list an owner at an address different from the property. Staff
would also use a variety of outreach methods to reach property owners, property managers, tenants
and others with an interest in this issue. All of the forms, instructions and links to applicable codes
would be available on the City's website at fcgov.com prior to the implementation of the rental
registration program.
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE OPTIONS
Included in both ordinances are three possible implementation dates: August 1, 2006, January 1,
2007, or August 1, 2007. As requested, the following summarizes the pros and cons of each:
August 1, 2006— 8 months for outreach and education
Pros:
Cons:
fast implementation
implemented for next lease cycle
implementation before next Council election
relatively short time for landlords to change leases
new Housing Compliance Inspector not funded until 2007
372
January 1. 2007 —14 months for outreach and education
Pros:
Cons:
October 18, 2005
- 1 year for planning
- implementation before next Council election
- implementation would still occur in August 2006 in most cases because many
leases change over on August 1st
- new Housing Compliance Inspector funded for 2007
may seem too long to wait for those being negatively impacted
August 1. 2007 — 20 months for outreach and education
Pros:
Cons:
plenty of time for planning and training
plenty of time for outreach
after next Council election
may seem too long to wait for those being negatively impacted
As with the rental registration program, outreach will be conducted on all changes to the code
related to occupancy. Extra efforts will also be made to inform landlords about the potential for
obtaining a certificate of occupancy for a boarding house and how to go about that process.
Neighborhood and Building Services staff will use a variety of outreach methods, including direct
mailing to stakeholders, general media releases, and targeted meetings and contacts with interested
parties and their representative groups.
ENFORCEMENT
Prior to implementation ofthe ordinances under discussion, enforcement ofthe existing occupancy
code will remain "status quo. " The exception to this would be the new "truth in advertising"
requirement, whereby the owner or property manager muststate in any advertisement the maximum
occupancy ofthe dwelling. This will go into effect ten days after second reading of that ordinance;
second reading is currently scheduled for November 15, 2005.
Once the new laws and related resources are in place, enforcement of the new provisions would
follow that of other codes. If an alleged violation is brought to the attention of the Housing
Inspector an investigation will be conducted to determine if there are sufficient grounds for a
summons. If a summons is served, the violators) would be required to appear before the referee
for a hearing. At the hearing, evidence would be presented on both sides. It should be noted that
in the case of occupancy violations, neighbors may have to be called as witnesses. The referee
would then decide if a violation exists and, if so, would assess a fine of $500 to $1000. He or she
could also enter orders to prevent future violations. The decision of the referee could be appealed
to Municipal Court. If the f ne was not paid, the potential exists to put alien on property or use a
373
October 18, 2005
collection agency. As with all prosecutions, it is possible that a plea agreement could be reached
before the matter proceeded to hearing.
OTHER PROPOSED ORDINANCES
The three remaining ordinances are needed to fully implement the changes to the two ordinances
described above. The effect of each ordinance is discussed below:
Ordinance No. 125, 2005 - amendments to court referee section of the Code providing a civil
infraction process (Item C).
Ordinance No. 126, 2005 - amendments to the general penalty section of the Code setting thepenalty
parameters for civil violations (Item D).
Ordinance No. 127, 2005 - amendments to the public nuisance ordinance allowing for violations of
civil infractions to be included in the public nuisanceprocess and housekeeping changes to clarify
the public nuisance process (Item E)."
City Manager Atteberry outlined changes to the proposed Ordinances included in the Council's
"read before" packet. He stated several important Ordinances were being presented that related to
one of the Budgeting for Outcomes statements "Quality Neighborhoods." He stated the City hoped
to establish an occupancy limit and rental registration. He introduced the staff team that worked on
this issue for the last several years.
Tess Heffernan, Policy and Project Manager, presented background information on the agenda item.
She stated at an August Work Session the Council gave staff direction to change the occupancy
regulations to a civil infraction; to limit occupancy to a family and caregiver or no more than three
adults and their dependants; to continue accepting boardinghouses in zones where they were allowed;
and to bring forth an option for a rental registration program. She stated there were five proposed
Ordinances. She stated the Planning and Zoning Board had reviewed the changes to the Land Use
Code and that outreach had been done with various stakeholders. She stated staff had met with the
Affordable Housing Board on several occasions. She stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 would make
amendments to the Land Use Code relating to occupancy definitions and regulations and
boardinghouse requirements. She outlined the specific changes set forth in Ordinance No. 123,
2005. She stated Ordinance No. 124, 2005 related to the rental housing code, specifically rental
standards, certificates of occupancy, truth in advertising, penalties and rental registration. She
outlined the specific provisions set forth in Option A and Option B (which would add a rental
registration program) of Ordinance No. 124, 2005. She explained the implementation costs and
stated there were three options for implementation. She stated the existing law would stay on the
books until the new law was implemented and that staff intended to develop enforcement policies
for the transitional period. She stated three additional Ordinances would make changes to other
Code provisions. She stated Ordinance No. 125, 2005 dealt with court referees and a procedure to
374
October 18, 2005
hear occupancy violations; that Ordinance No. 126, 2005 related to general penalties; and that
Ordinance No. 127, 2005 amended the provisions relating to abatement of public nuisances.
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have two minutes to speak on any of the five
proposed Ordinances.
Earl Poppe, 1018 Timber Lane, asked that the Council adopt an effective Ordinance.
Tom Snyder, 416 West Swallow Road, presented petitions signed by approximately 400 people
urging Council to revise the occupancy ordinance and to establish a registry of rental properties and
their owners.
Pete Seel, 1837 Scarborough Drive, presented petitions signed by 318 people supporting Option B
of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 creating a rental registration program. He stated there was a need for
a confidential non -bureaucratic database that would allow adequate enforcement and protect privacy.
Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court #7A, expressed a concern about rental registration and stated
there were already databases that were accessible through the County Assessor. She opposed the
City asking for information on rentals and suggested registering problem properties while enforcing
the ordinances that were already on the books.
Janet Fritz, 829 East Pitkin Street, stated 90% of the homes in her previous neighborhood became
rentals in the last 10 years and that there had been erosion in the quality of life in that area. She
supported the proposed changes to decriminalize occupancy offenses and to have a database that
would allow problems to be addressed.
Bob Lawrence, 3017 Meadowlark, supported Option B of Ordinance No. 124, 2005 because of the
rental registration requirement.
Glen Colton, Citizen Planners, conveyed the support of Citizen Planners for Ordinance No. 123,
2005 and implementation of the Ordinance by August 2006. He stated he would like to go on record
as supporting Option B of Ordinance No. 124, 2005.
Katrina Graydon, 901 Garfield Street, spoke regarding the impact of nuisance rental properties on
neighborhoods. She asked the Council to protect single-family neighborhoods by adopting
Ordinance No. 124, 2005.
Leo Buccellato, homeowner, urged the Council to go forward with the nuisance law reforms,
including rental registration. He spoke regarding the impacts of noise and problems associated with
absentee landlords. He urged enforcement of the noise ordinances.
375
October 18, 2005
Eric Kronwall,1119 Monticello Court, representing the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, opposed the
development of a registration system for single-family rental properties. He stated the Board of
Realtors supported enforcement of the "three unrelated" occupancy limit. He stated this would have
a negative impact on most renters and on some landlords. He stated to mitigate anticipated hardships
the Board ofRealtors supported an adequate phase -in period for enforcement ofthe "three unrelated"
requirement.
Bill Switzer, 715 Gilgalad Way, spoke against Ordinance No. 123, 2005 because it would create a
financial burden for workers and students. He urged the Council to defeat the proposed Ordinance
and remove the current occupancy limits from the City Code.
Craig McFadden, 2715 Pleasant Valley Road, stated he fully supported the proposed Ordinances to
address rental housing nuisance problems and protect property values. He stated he also had
petitions to present to the Council.
Raymond Anderson, 1301 Luke Street, representing the Highlander Heights Homeowners'
Association, stated he had petitions with 122 signatures supporting occupancy limits set out in
Ordinance No. 123, 2005. He asked the Council to protect the quality of life in single-family
neighborhoods.
Courtney Przybylski, Director of Community Affairs for ASCSU, stated CSU students supported
the compromise position relating to boardinghouses. She spoke regarding the need for affordable
housing in Fort Collins. She stated about half of Fort Collins residents lived in rentals and would
be affected by Council's decisions on these issues. She thanked the Council for moving away from
Code language relating to "unrelated" occupants. She supported rental standards, truth in advertising
and a phase -in period of January 1, 2007.
Chris Crosby, 1609 Mathews Street, expressed concern that the City would allow boardinghouses
in predominantly single-family neighborhoods. She stated this could lead to problems with
overcrowding, parking, and devaluation of property values. She stated in her neighborhood two
property owners had already applied to convert their single-family homes to boardinghouses, one
with nine bedrooms and the other with five bedrooms. She stated a 300 foot separation between
boardinghouses would mean that the remaining residential properties in between would lose their
value. She asked if there was a way for her neighborhood to request an amendment to have
boardinghouses removed from the neighborhood's zoning district.
Courtney Healey, ASCSU President, thanked City staff for a willingness to find a compromise
position. She stated the proposed legislation was the best compromise that had been developed. She
asked for flexibility in making future changes. She asked that Council consider the economic
hardships that would occur as a result of these types of changes. She supported the removal of
"discriminatory language" relating to "three unrelated" occupants and stated ASCSU supported the
376
October 18, 2005
proposal relating to boardinghouses. She stated ASCSU had no objections at this time to rental
registration.
Randy Fisher, 3007 Moore Lane, stated this debate should not be portrayed as "the community
against the student population." He stated as an investment property owner his perspective was that
compliance with Ordinance No. 124, 2005 (Option B) would not be that difficult. He stated it would
provide an incentive for people to be "good corporate and business citizens."
Brad Gulick, 1001 Boltz Drive, spoke regarding the economic impacts of these Ordinances. He
supported the option of allowing boardinghouses in permissible zones.
Ron Burkhard, 626B South Grant Avenue, CSU student, stated this Ordinance would
disproportionately harm people who do not have a lot of money. He noted that boardinghouses
would not be allowed in many areas. He stated the proposal did not seem to recognize a distinction
between "nuisance" homes and "people just needing to get by."
Nicole Johnson, 316 West Prospect Road, ASCSU member, stated ASCSU was not opposed to
rental registration but would like to ensure that tenant information would not be included in the
database. She encouraged Council to exclude the owner contact information from the Web -based
portion of the database and to make that information available on request only. She stated ASCSU
was concerned about the cost of the program and whether this could result in greater cost to tenants.
She urged the Council to minimize the cost of the program.
Wes Westfall, 1112 Skyline Drive, stated something needed to be done about the rental blight issue
but that he was "dismayed" about the proposed solution. He stated this proposal would negatively
affect property values in high rental areas. He stated property values would drop when investor
dollars were taken out of an area. He stated this would allow a search warrant to be issued to
determine if four adults were living in four conforming bedrooms without any kind of nuisance
complaint.
Natasha Grundin, CSU student, stated there was some merit to decriminalizing the punishment for
violations of the occupancy code but that this decision should not be based on the desire to prosecute
with greater ease. She stated counting each day as a separate violation seemed "unnecessarily harsh"
since it would take time to find a new residence after prosecution of an occupancy violation.
Jim Fullbright, 1806 Marlborough Court, stated his neighborhood had been adversely impacted by
overcrowding and that home values had been affected by nuisance rentals. He stated there were
safety concerns related to too much traffic. He stated he favored all of the Ordinances and asked that
Council adopt them as written.
Stacy Smith, ASCSU student representative, 744 City Park Avenue, stated ASCSU supported the
January 1, 2007 to phase -in changes.
377
October 18, 2005
Patty Westfall, 1113 Skyline Drive, stated she had a six -bedroom home and that if this Ordinance
passed that houses would not sell in areas that were already 90% rentals. She urged the City to look
at neighborhoods such as hers that were zoned single-family but were in actuality no longer single-
family to change the zoning designation to allow the boardinghouse exemption as an option.
Dan Palmer, CSU student, stated at the Work Session it was suggested that 1,400 students would be
displaced by enforcement of this Ordinance. He stated increased demand would increase the price
of housing. He stated this Ordinance was being done to fix the problem of"too much partying" and
that it would impact many although a disproportionately small number of students caused the
partying problem. He asked the Council to consider more carefully thought out solutions to solve
the actual problem.
Troy Hutch, 629 West Oak Street, expressed frustration that the focus remained on the number of
unrelated people living in the same house. He urged the Council to strike the current ordinance and
"start with a clean slate." He stated the real issues were behavioral issues and home conditions. He
stated he opposed the Ordinance relating to the number of occupants in a house.
Jaqueline Zipser, 2048 Bennington Circle, stated the number of rental properties on her block had
tripled in a five-year period and that the quality of the neighborhood was "going downhill." She
encouraged the Council to adopt Ordinance No. 123, 2005 with the earliest implementation date and
enact rental registration provisions. She stated a good neighborhood for families was one in which
the residents had a "stake in the neighborhood." She stated many renters were "passing through."
She stated the trend was that people of modest means were no longer able to live in "quality
neighborhoods."
Siu Au Lee, 939 Pioneer Avenue, stated her neighborhood had residents with a long term interest
in staying in the neighborhood and that enforcement of the nuisance ordinance was important for
saving neighborhoods. She stated the cost of rental registration would be minimal and noted that
rents increased as landlords "stuffed" more renters into one home while rents went down when
landlords realized that neighbors would not tolerate that. She presented a petition to the City
Council.
Peggy Reeves, 1931 Sandalwood Lane, spoke about the changes in her neighborhood in the last 30
years. She stated this was a quality of life issue rather than a "student issue." She asked that the
Council put something in place that would have some "teeth" and would mean something to the
impacted neighborhoods.
Johnny Greenbow, ASCSU Assistant Director of Community Affairs, encouraged the Council to
consider the boardinghouse option.
Frank Goss,1621 Leesdale Court, supported Ordinance No.123, 2005 and Ordinance No.124, 2005
(Option B).
October 18, 2005
Michelle Jacobs, Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado, stated stricter ordinances would
have a significant impact on those already impacted by the high cost of housing. She stated there
would be a need for 1,000 additional units if stricter laws were imposed. She stated there was a
severe lack of housing for CSU students. She supported the enforcement of the existing nuisance
ordinances. She stated a small minority of homes consistently broke the law and that the proposed
ordinances would punish residents that abided by the laws by increasing their housing costs. She
stated there was no need for additional behavioral ordinances that would be difficult and expensive
to enforce. She stated the Homebuilders Association supported the continued enforcement of
existing ordinances.
Kathryn Azari, 2424 Sheffield Circle West, asked that the Council vote for quality of life in Fort
Collins.
Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, submitted petitions signed by 82 registered voters. He urged
the Council to preserve and protect neighborhoods by maintaining the current occupancy limits and
to make any action meaningful. He urged the Council to change violations from a criminal to civil
infraction, to require that tenants be informed of existing City ordinances, to develop a simple and
confidential database of residential properties and their owners for contact information, and to adopt
a "zero tolerance" toward violations. He stated the petition urged the adoption of Ordinance No.
123, 2005 and Ordinance No. 124, 2005 (Option B).
Mark Suttle, CSU Junior residing on Plum Street, stated CSU and Fort Collins were "fundamentally
linked" and that most students were not here just for "short term reasons." He stated students in
general care about Fort Collins.
Kevin Wilcox, 2114 Sweetwater Creek Drive, stated everyone wanted something to happen but
nobody had an answer. He stated enforcement relating to behavioral problems had been stymied by
the budget. He stated the result of the proposal was that lower income people would be in "generic
housing" and that the character of Fort Collins would change. He stated students and lower income
people were not as active in the "political process" and that their right to choose to live with more
than three people should be protected.
Martha Denney, 1756 Concord Drive, supported the passage of Ordinance No. 123, 2005 and
Ordinance No. 124, 2005 (Option B). She stated there had been a "meaningful and civil
conversation" about these problematic issues. She stated Fort Collins should be proactive in dealing
with the problems that have been an "assault' on neighborhoods. She asked for implementation of
the ordinances as soon as possible.
Ruth Davies, 2072 Bennington Circle, asked the Council to support a "sensible and enforceable"
rental housing ordinance, such as Ordinance No. 124, 2005 (Option B). She stated such an ordinance
would prevent problems caused by overcrowding ofneighborhoods not designed for high population
densities. She stated rental registration would contribute to enforcement.
379
October 18, 2005
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, Rolland Moore Neighborhood Action Coalition, stated over
20% of single-family houses in Fort Collins were rentals. He stated this was a "significant economic
enterprise" that realized over $100 million in gross annual revenues and that the City had no accurate
information on the location or extent of this "enterprise." He stated lack of enforcement of existing
ordinances had resulted in the problems that have been noted, i.e. overcrowding, an increase in
neighborhood disturbances, parking and traffic problems, deterioration in upkeep, and impacts on
quality of life. He stated opportunities for moderate income families to purchase and occupy homes
were impacted. He stated multi -family rental units did not have these problems because there were
property managers. He supported the truth in advertising requirement and asked that it be
implemented as soon as possible. He stated a registration registry would give the City an opportunity
to educate property owners about the law. He supported implementation by August 2006.
David Sheill, 1611 Mathews Street, spoke regarding the conversion of house in his neighborhood
to a rental and the aspiration of the property owner to get more than double the going rental amount
by overcrowding the house with nine people. He stated this type of overcrowding impacted the
neighborhood and the City's infrastructure capacity. He stated if there were boardinghouses that the
City should study the costs.
Robert Swanstrom, 4720 Prairie Ridge Drive, supported Ordinance No. 124, 2005. He stated the
"three unrelated" ordinance was passed in the 1960s and that it was out of date. He stated 1960s
houses were smaller than today's houses. He questioned putting all rental properties in "one basket"
when the management of those rentals was the real problem. He stated he supported rental
registration.
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive, Colorado Apartment Association, stated enforcement was
needed. She asked how many violations actually went to court and resulted in the collection of fines.
She asked for continued enforcement of the existing ordinances. She stated she would prefer a
"residential registration" rather than a "rental registration."
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would consider each of the Ordinances separately.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Ordinance No. 123, 2005 dealt in part with boardinghouse and rooming
house regulations. He stated the Ordinance provided that in the L-M-N zone there would be a 300-
foot separation and that in the other zones allowing boardinghouses there would be no separation.
He asked if there was a particular reason for the 300-foot separation. Peter Bames, Zoning Code
Administrator, stated the Planning and Zoning Board was presented with several options, ranging
from the 1,500 foot separation required in the Code for other uses in the Land Use Code to 300 feet.
He stated there was a required separation of 700 feet to 1,500 feet for group homes. He stated the
L-M-N zone contained mainly single-family neighborhoods. He stated a 300-foot separation would
result in anywhere from one to two boardinghouses per block face, depending on the location. He
ME
October 18, 2005
stated staff was given the direction to develop programs that would protect the single-family
character of neighborhoods. He stated the 300-foot separation was therefore recommended in the
L-M-N zone because that would allow some boardinghouses while not over -concentrating them in
that zone.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there would be a 300-foot separation required between boardinghouses
that were across the street. Barnes stated when separation distances were stipulated in the Land Use
Code that those distances were measured in a straight line in all directions, including across the
street.
Councilmember Manvel asked if there was an exception for boardinghouses on opposite sides of an
arterial street. Barnes stated the separation distances could be waived when there were "significant
boundaries" separating neighborhoods, such as arterial streets, railroads, rivers, etc.
Councilmember Manvel asked for an explanation of"grandfathering" existing boardinghouses that
were closer than 300 feet in the L-M-N zone. Barnes stated, assuming the boardinghouses were
legal, that those boardinghouses could remain.
Mayor Hutchinson expressed a concern about a "one size fits all' kind of criterion. He asked if there
was a possibility for a waiver in some situations i.e. if two boardinghouses would be within 295 of
each other and it would make sense to allow both. Barnes stated the Planning and Zoning Board or
the Zoning Board of Appeals (depending on the Code requirements) could be asked to consider an
exemption. He stated the Boards would have to be convinced that the criteria were being satisfied
before any relief would be granted. He stated the Board could consider whether the deviation was
"nominal and inconsequential" in the context of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the effect of allowing no more than two boardinghouses per
400 or 500 feet, when the density would remain the same. He asked if that kind of criteria could
work. Barnes stated there were many ways to limit the number of boardinghouses to prevent over -
concentration in any one area, i.e. the number per block, the number in a subdivision, etc.
Councilmember Kastein asked why staff was recommending a strict distance separation rather than
a "number per" requirement. Barnes stated the proposal was the easiest way to make a determination
and that this was perceived to be equitable and fair across the whole City.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff would be able to develop a "number per" proposal. Barnes
stated other options could be brought back to Council before Second Reading.
Councilmember Brown asked for the dimensions of a typical block. Barnes stated block sizes in the
older neighborhoods were based on one -tenth of a mile (about 528 feet) and that block sizes varied
in newer neighborhoods from 300 to 1,000 feet. He stated in the L-M-N zone the typical lot width
was about 50 feet and that there would be one boardinghouse allowed for every five to six lots.
381
October 18, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson stated some speakers had noted that the boardinghouses would contribute to
"balanced public policy" since 48% of the people in Fort Collins were renters. He stated it may be
necessary to look more closely at the criteria. He stated criteria should not be chosen on the basis
of simplicity alone. He asked if there were other possibilities for more flexible criteria that staff
could bring forward prior to Second Reading. Heffernan stated it would be helpful to understand
whether Council's intent was to provide for more flexibility, to create higher densities, etc.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he would like to see more flexibility and that he did not favor the "one size
fits all" approach for existing neighborhoods.
Councilmember Roy stated the term "boardinghouse" was a"misnomer." He asked that staff explain
"use by right" in the N-C-B and C-L zones. Heffernan stated this would mean a standard review
process through an administrative process and that there would be no public hearing in those zones.
She stated in the L-M-N zone a 300-foot separation was proposed and that this would involve a
public Planning and Zoning Board hearing. She stated in the other zones there would be either a
Type 1 or Type 2 public hearing.
Councilmember Roy asked how many housing units would be encompassed within all three zones
that would allow boardinghouses. Heffernan stated this would need to be researched.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to know how much housing stock would be involved and
what the maximum populations would be in that housing stock.
Councilmember Manvel asked what information could be presented at a public hearing on a
boardinghouse.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested that staff present information that had been prepared relating to the
public hearing process. Barnes stated the Code was not being changed with respect to the zones
allowing boardinghouses. He stated boardinghouses in the pennitting zones were already subject
to a review process. He stated the C-L and N-C-B zones allowed boardinghouses subject to basic
development review at a non-public hearing. He stated the applicant was required to submit
documentation and a development application for departmental reviews. He stated departments
returned comments to the Current Planning Department and the plan would either be approved or
sent back to the applicant for revisions. He stated neighbors were not notified if there was a non-
public hearing. He stated after staff approval of the project the applicant could apply for a building
permit and that the project would then go through the building permit process. He stated building
and site inspections were required through the building process and that upon compliance with all
requirements a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. He stated in other zones, for projects
requiring a Type 1 review, that a public administrative hearing was held before a zoning hearing
officer. He stated the project would go through an informal conceptual review, that documentation
would be submitted for departmental reviews, and that notices would be mailed to adjacent property
owners. He stated hearing participants could say that the use was inappropriate but that the Code
382
October 18, 2005
had already indicated that the use was appropriate because it was listed as a permitted use subject
to basic development review or a use subject to a Type 1 or Type 2 review. He stated as long as the
project met all of the standards that the decision -maker should make a decision that the plan was
approved.
Councilmember Brown stated this appeared to be a time consuming process. He asked how long it
would take to go through the approval process for one boardinghouse and how long it would take
if there were 100 boardinghouses coming through the process. Bames stated each application would
be treated separately. He stated whether it was a basic development review (a non-public process)
or a public hearing process there would be time involved. He stated having a public hearing would
add a month to the schedule. He stated a basic development review would take four to six weeks
and that a Type 1 or Type 2 review on a straightforward application would take six to eight week.
He stated if there were issues, such as alley abutment and requirements for alley improvements, that
the time frame would be lengthened. He stated multiple applications would impact the workload.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she looked at boardinghouses as a way to allow four or more
people to live in a house. She stated it appeared that there were two different types of
boardinghouses depending on if they had more or less than 10 occupants (R-1 and R-3). She stated
previous discussions had focused on the ability of a four bedroom house to house four people and
using the boardinghouse regulations to accommodate that. She stated she had not been interested
in allowing 9-10 occupants. She asked if her reading was correct and that there would actually be
two types of boardinghouses. Barnes stated from a Land Use Code standpoint there would be only
one type of boardinghouse. He stated 10 or fewer got into building code regulations and that there
were already boardinghouses on Remington Street that had more than 10 occupants. Felix Lee,
Director of Building and Zoning, stated the two types of boardinghouses did not relate to the zoning
code and that the two designations were a way to separate lower density single-family housing from
multiple -family housing. He stated as far as the building code anything over 10 occupants would
fall into the R-1 multiple -housing category. He stated there were building code requirements relating
to the type of construction, proximity to property lines, firewall protection, exit width, etc.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that there were building conditions for
development of housing that would have more than six people. Lee stated there were different
requirements for housing with more than 10 occupants. He stated there were additional criteria if
there were more than six occupants.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated because ofthe additional building regulations, an applicant would
"think twice" before converting a house into a boardinghouse and that this could alleviate the
concern that everyone would want to create a boardinghouse to accommodate six people. She stated
the process for conversion to a four -occupant house seemed somewhat "onerous." City Attorney
Roy asked ifthe concern was that the boardinghouse language did not "cap" the number ofoccupants
at four.
383
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she did not necessarily want to cap the number of occupants at
four. She stated she was concerned that the process to house four people should not be as "onerous"
as it would be if there would be nine or 10 occupants.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the process would have to be followed again if there was a change
in ownership. Barnes stated once a Certificate of Occupancy was issued that it would go with the
property.
Councilmember Brown stated one concern that had been expressed related to parking. He noted that
there would be one parking space required for every two bedrooms and two parking spaces for every
three bedrooms. He asked about the required configuration for a parking space and if there was a
formula for the amount of yard that must be retained. Barnes stated the Code required that every
parking space must have unobstructed access to the street and that side -by -side parking would be
needed to satisfy that requirement. He stated the Code limited the amount of improved parking area
in the front yard to no more than 40%.
Councilmember Brown asked about the parking requirements if there was alley access. Barnes
stated the applicant would have to provide the dimensions of the rear parking area and that a
determination would be made regarding the type of surface, fencing, etc. He stated there were other
departmental regulations as well, specifically storm water regulations.
Councilmember Brown asked when hard surface parking would be required for rear parking. Barnes
stated the Code required that any parking spaces at the rear must be hard surfaced, except for single-
family dwellings.
Councilmember Ohlson requested that a one -color map be prepared showing the areas in which
boardinghouses would be possible prior to Second Reading. He stated this was a "significant
change" from the beginning of the discussion. He asked about the following reference in the agenda
item summary materials: "The dwelling would be required to have two off-street parking spaces per
three bedrooms." He asked if there could be two people in each bedroom, which could mean that
if there were six occupants that there could be six cars. Barnes stated it would be difficult to monitor
how many occupants there would be in each bedroom. He stated that, in comparison, only one off-
street parking space was required for a single-family home, regardless of the number of bedrooms,
and that there could be multiple cars. He stated at this time only one parking space was required for
a single-family home with three adult occupants.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it seemed "more than generous" to require only two off-street parking
spaces for three bedrooms.
Councilmember Kastein asked for confirmation that boardinghouses would continue to be allowed
in the same zoning districts, that the Type 1 and Type 2 hearing processes would remain the same,
WE
October 18, 2005
and that the difference was the distance requirement and the parking requirement. Barnes replied
in the affirmative and stated the other difference was the square footage per occupant.
Councilmember Roy asked how many boardinghouses there were in Fort Collins. Bames stated was
unknown.
Councilmember Roy asked how many boardinghouses the City knew about officially. Barnes stated
two went through the approval process in the last 15 years.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that medium and high density areas would allow
boardinghouses. Barnes stated the N-C-M (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density) would
not allow boardinghouses.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated higher occupancy in a house would be appropriate in higher
density neighborhoods. Barnes stated boardinghouses would not be allowed in the zones that were
considered to be single-family and that the table in the Ordinance listed the zones that would not
allow boardinghouses.
Councilmember Kastein noted that the City Attorney had indicated that it was important to change
violations from a criminal to civil infraction. He asked how important the registration system would
be for enforcement of the occupancy limit. City Attorney Roy stated enforcement regarding the
occupancy limit was not one of the major reasons for staffs recommendation of rental property
registration. He stated one of the other requirements in the Code was that if there was reason to
believe that the occupancy limit had been exceeded or there was some other Code violation that the
owner of a rental property and the manager must make available for inspection by the City tenant
and lease information. He stated this was separate and apart from the rental registration requirement.
He stated the requirement would be key in determining responsible parties with regard to a suspected
violation of the occupancy limit.
Mayor Hutchinson indicated that the questions and discussions should focus on Ordinance No.123,
2005 at this point.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt
Ordinance No. 123, 2005 on First Reading as amended to include a January 1, 2007 implementation
date.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the distance requirement was part of this Ordinance.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he had questions about that. He noted that Council appeared to be asking
staff to go back and look at other options and asked how that direction should be given. City
Attorney Roy stated the Council could make an amendment to the Ordinance or could adopt the
im
October 18, 2005
Ordinance on First Reading and give direction to staff to explore and bring back alternatives on
Second Reading.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested the latter method since the Council did not have enough information
to propose specific amendments on First Reading. He stated it appeared from the questions that
Council was interested prior to Second Reading in having staff review the boardinghouse
qualification process that seemed to be "onerous." He stated he understood the Council direction
to be that the process should be as concise, timely and simple as possible. He stated he believed that
the Council wanted the staff to look at that process, keeping Council's intent in mind.
Councilmember Kastein stated he would like further clarification regarding the difference in zoning
requirements for multi -family units and boardinghouses. He asked whether a boardinghouse became
a multi -family unit after 10 occupants. Lee stated under the Land Use Code the design made it a
"boardinghouse." He stated the Building Code looked at it differently because of the intensity of
occupancy.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the 300-foot separation would apply to all boardinghouses. He
asked for further clarification of the difference between a boardinghouse and a multi -family unit.
Lee stated aboardinghouse was a "collective living environment" that might have a common kitchen
and a multi -family unit contained individual, complete dwelling units in one building.
Councilmember Kastein stated he was uncomfortable that there would be no maximum occupancy
for the boardinghouse. He stated there should at least be discussion about a maximum number.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that there were inherent limits for boardinghouses associated with square
footage, parking, etc. He questioned the need for a maximum number because ofthose other criteria.
Councilmember Roy asked how many residents lived in a boardinghouse on the 700 block of
Remington Street. Lee stated about 20 people lived in that boardinghouse.
Councilmember Roy stated he agreed with Councilmember Kastein's concern about having a
maximum occupancy for boardinghouses.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were two different types of boardinghouses. She stated the
Council should not limit the possibility of building a boardinghouse to house 20 people if it met all
ofthe criteria, including ADA and all of the City's requirements. She stated she was not comfortable
in changing the Code to have such a limit. She stated a percentage limit was set for additional used
car lots in the North College corridor because nobody wanted too many. She stated the Council did
not want any block to become inundated with boardinghouses and that she did not know if a
restriction based on space would have validity in all circumstances. She asked if there could be a
percentage requirement rather than a distance requirement to accomplish the intent to prevent a
October 18, 2005
proliferation of boardinghouses in any area. She stated boardinghouses would not be allowed in
single-family zones. Heffernan stated staff could look at a percentage option.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood that Council would like staff to come back with distance
options, density options and percentage options.
Councilmember Manvel noted that the proposal would restrict boardinghouses in only one type of
zone and that most zones would have no restriction on density. He asked if the Council was
supportive of that. He stated he understood that the boardinghouses on Remington were a use by
right and that there was no proposal to change that.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she understood that and that it was appropriate to have more
people in medium mixed density and high density areas.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it would be easy to have six bedrooms in a 2,100 square foot house
with a full basement and that there could be two people in each bedroom. He stated only four off-
street parking spaces would be required.
Councilmember Manvel stated there would only be square footage for five people in that house
because 650 square feet would be required per person.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like to see more work on the parking issue because there
was a potential for four to eight people to park on the street. He stated the parking requirement was
"lax" compared to the other requirements.
Councilmember Ohlson asked how many off-street parking places would be required in a "normal
situation." He stated many homes could easily accommodate four or five bedrooms and that in the
"real world" there could be more than four or five people living in those homes. He stated he would
like more attention given to the parking issue.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification of the parking requirement for a house with a
garage, driveway and three bedrooms. Barnes stated a three -bedroom boardinghouse would be
required to have two off-street parking spaces. He stated there could be four occupants in a 1,500
square footthree-bedroomboardinghouse.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked where the two parking spaces must be located. Barnes stated the
garage did not count as a parking space and that every space must have unrestricted access to the
street. He stated the driveway would count as parking spaces.
Councilmember Kastein noted that much ofwhat was in the existing Code was being maintained and
that the proposed Ordinances were intended to provide better ways of enforcement. He stated
restrictions were being added with regard to the number of occupants, parking, and distance
387
October 18, 2005
requirements. He stated about 70% of homes in violation at this time were four bedrooms. He stated
four -bedroom units could become boardinghouses if they met the criteria.
Councilmember Manvel questioned why the parking requirement was less than the number of
boarders. He stated there could be more boarders and visitors than off-street parking spaces. Barnes
stated the proposal was modeled after the parking requirements for other higher density types of uses,
such as multi -family. He stated prior to Second Reading staff would look at additional parking
options, such as a parking requirement based on the number of boarders.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if only one off-street parking space was required for a single-family home
in the R-L zone. Barnes stated the Code required one off-street parking space for single-family
homes.
City Manager Atteberry requested clarification regarding the Council direction on what staff should
bring back on Second Reading.
Mayor Hutchinson stated Council was requesting (1) different options for the spacing of
boardinghouses in the L-M-N zone (distance, density and percentage), (2) a review ofthe 20-year-old
boardinghouse application and approval process to make it concise and fairly responsive, and (3)
options relating to parking.
City Manager Atteberry stated he also understood that there was direction to look at the maximum
number of tenants in a boardinghouse.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council decided that the other criteria would drive the number of
occupants and that the number of occupants was not an issue.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the intent of the Council was more flexibility on the distance and
density requirement and more restrictions on parking.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the thinking was that in some places two corner houses would have
the least impact on the neighborhood. He noted that under the proposed system those two corner
houses would not be allowed to be boardinghouses because of the distance requirement. He stated
he would like staff to look at that. He stated he was worried about the one house that would be left
between two boardinghouses. He stated he wanted the flexibility to determine which houses would
be best as boardinghouses. He expressed a concern about any kind of"automatic" determination that
might not result in the best decision.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was the "big" issue that had been discussed for a long time. He
stated there was a "compelling option" to consider, i.e. addressing only behavioral issues and
building conditions. He stated this was a "compelling argument" and that this should be Council's
focus. He stated the proposal overlooked the fact that there was a "three unrelated" Ordinance
09
October 18, 2005
already in place that was not being enforced. He stated an option was to "throw it away" and enforce
only on behavioral issues and building conditions. He stated another option was to enforce the
"three unrelated" Ordinance to make it less economically rewarding to violate the Ordinance. He
stated something needed to be done with the "three unrelated" Ordinance and to him it was
preferable to "go with what we have" and to enforce what was already on the books. He stated many
apartments had high vacancy rates because they were abiding by occupancy limits to their cost. He
stated it was an "incremental step" to enforce the current Ordinance and make it a civil rather than
criminal offense.
Councilmember Manvel stated he was "impressed" with the public comments, staff work and
Council discussion on what could have been a "divisive issue." He stated everyone was "converging
on a reasonable solution" that was being presented as a package of options. He stated allowing
boardinghouses was a reasonable option to allow students to have economical places to live. He
stated students would pay more in rent and that this was regrettable. He stated there had been a law
on the books for years that was a "contract' with single-family neighborhoods and that this law had
been "ignored" by the City. He stated "neighborhoods were very quickly slipping away" and that
it was time to stop that and make the Ordinance enforceable.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would have preferred to have "dumped" the existing
Ordinance and started with a clean slate. She stated that was being done to some extent. She stated
one thing that was learned during this process was that best practices usually started with a strong
public nuisance ordinance and strong enforcement. She stated she had concerns for the rental
community in the city and that there was a need to understand the economics of the community and
the impacts to the half of the community that was renting. She stated it was important that the
Council not make any action so "onerous" that it would "destroy a segment of the community." She
stated there needed to be equity and possibilities for people who had to rent because of economics.
She stated this was a step in the right direction and that the boardinghouse component was an
important piece to allow people to have a place to live together.
Councilmember Roy thanked staff and the citizens who spoke. He stated many "communities" had
worked together to try to find a solution. He stated he would support the Ordinance on First
Reading. He stated he did have concerns that there needed to be a "continuing conversation" prior
to Second Reading. He stated he had received a lot of correspondence asking for something with
"teeth" and that this legislation would be even clearer on Second Reading.
Councilmember Brown stated he lived in a neighborhood that was almost half rentals and that
according to the maps a boardinghouse would be allowed in his neighborhood. He stated he was
pleased with the progress that had been made on this issue and the process that had been followed.
He stated this needed to be a smooth transition and that this would give people a chance to "adjust
their lives" before this would take effect. He stated staff did a tremendous job, that Council worked
on this with patience, and that the citizenry gave valuable input.
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Ohlson stated good work had been done. He thanked staff for the "best work on
any issue" that he had seen since he returned to the Council. He stated he was "pleased" with the
direction on this particular Ordinance. He stated he ran again for Council because of this issue
because he "saw it destroying neighborhoods." He stated some work remained to be done before
Second Reading. He stated families that had not been able to afford to rent single-family homes
would have a better chance of being able to rent in single-family low density neighborhoods.
Mayor Hutchinson thanked staff and his fellow Councilmembers for some "extraordinarily good
work." He stated one of the principles that struck him was that the City had an obligation to the
single-family zoned neighborhoods to help those neighborhoods be what they were intended to be.
He stated the City also had an obligation to renters and that the key to that was the boardinghouse
component of the package. He stated that was why he wanted the process to establish a
boardinghouse to be easy, simple and reasonable while meeting the requirements. He stated there
would be a "balance" created. He stated this would not be a "silver bullet" and that this was a short
term action. He stated the Council would need to look at a long term strategy to accommodate the
renters and students in a way that they did not have to live in a single-family neighborhood. He
stated this could mean something related to in -fill and redevelopment activities.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a recess at this point.)
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would now consider Ordinance No. 124, 2005. He noted that
there were two options on this Ordinance.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the minimum $500 fine and the fact that it would apply each
day of the violation. City Attorney Roy stated each day would be a separate violation and that this
language reflected the language in the general penalty provisions of the Code pertaining to criminal
offenses.
Councilmember Kastein stated it would take time for someone to move and that it would also take
time to remedy building conditions. City Attorney Roy stated the language indicating that each day
was a separate violation was sparingly used and only in situations where the violator ignored the
consequences of the first prosecution.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the $500 minimum fine was reasonable when it was being made
a civil offense. City Attorney Roy stated staff understood Council's direction to develop a
"meaningful consequence."
390
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Kastein asked if setting a minimum fine would give flexibility to the judge and
prosecutor. City Attorney Roy stated the minimum fine was included in the Ordinance because of
staff s understanding regarding the Council's direction to establish a threshold. He stated the
Council could choose to leave the fine the same as for other offenses ($0 to $1,000).
Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the language in the Ordinance addressing the Health Officer.
She noted that the City does not have a Health Officer and asked if it would therefore refer to the
County Health Department or agent. She asked if the City was able to designate the County to make
determinations about cleanliness or other health matters and whether the City would then have to pay
the County for such determinations. Lee stated the County Health Department was a subdivision of
the State Health Department and that the County would respond to a City request if the County
believed that it had jurisdiction and that the matter that was the subject of the request involved a
public health issue.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked for confirmation that the City would not need to have a Health
Officer position and that this would be a service provided by the County. Lee replied in the
affirmative. Heffernan noted that the County Health Department provided this same service with
regard to liquor licensed establishments.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the County considered this an obligation that required staffing and
funding. Lee stated the County Health Department assumed the responsibility for the entire County
with regard to public health.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification regarding the fines that could be levied and the typical
action of the judge in determining a fine. He stated the City did not have a tradition of assessing
heavy fines even though it was possible to do so. He asked if a minimum fine of $500 was set
whether the judge could suspend the additional fine that could be levied for each additional day of
the violation. City Attorney Roy stated the Ordinance as drafted provided that the minimum fine
could not be suspended. He stated that if the Council wanted more flexibility the Ordinance could
be revised to relax the minimum fine.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the biggest question relating to Ordinance No. 124, 2005 was the
addition of a rental registration program. She stated she had an ongoing question about the value
and purpose in establishing a rental registration program. She stated there were already mechanisms
in place to obtain contact information. She stated she would like to hear "solid reasons" to support
creating such a program at a cost of $155,000. City Manager Atteberry stated he and the staff
believed that rental registration was important. He recognized that this was an "emotional issue" and
that some people thought that it was "big brother" and that a "licensing agenda" would follow. He
stated this was not the intent. He stated the rental registration program that was proposed a year ago
had now been taken to a "basic information" level, i.e. property owner, contact information, address,
address changes. He stated tenant information was not being requested. He stated the fee for the
first year would be $40 and that the fee thereafter would be $20 per year. He stated the intent was
391
October 18, 2005
not to be "intrusive" and that the intent was to make the program as easy to administer as possible
from the end user's standpoint via the City's website. He stated the Council wanted "data driven
policy advice" from staff and that if Ordinance No. 123, 2005 was adopted on Second Reading that
staff would have no way to track the impacts of the Ordinance without a rental registration program.
He stated such a program would give the staff better information to give better advice to the Council
and would help "put to rest" some of the concerns expressed about the occupancy standard. He
stated a future rental licensing program was not part ofthe staff's "agenda" and that the data obtained
through a rental registration program would be helpful in enforcing existing nuisance codes. He
stated the Larimer County Assessor's database was currently the only available information and that
this was not a "good tool" for the City's purposes. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager,
stated a rental registration program would help staff enforce the nuisance ordinance and the
occupancy limit. She stated such a program would help in contacting the property owner more
quickly. She stated the ability to contact property owners quickly was an important aspect of
enforcement and compliance. She stated delays in contacting property owners prolonged the
duration of the nuisance and complicated the enforcement process. She stated there were problems
in locating property owners in about 11% of cases for a variety of reasons. She stated a rental
registration program would also be helpful in educating property owners about upcoming Code
changes or proposals, seasonal reminders, etc. City Attorney Roy stated the usefulness of a rental
registration program in enforcing the occupancy limit would be limited. He stated he would
advocate rental registration because it would help in drafting legislation that was data driven and
would have a "rational basis." He stated if Council was interested in continuing to address problems
that "may or may not be attributable to rental properties" that it would continue to be important to
have data. He stated Council had a lot of discretion in the exercise of the police power as to how to
legislate. He stated to defend legislation it was especially helpful to be able to demonstrate that the
problem being addressed was being "rationally" addressed. He stated to do that data was needed.
Councilmember Manvel stated he supported the rental registration process. He stated there was also
a "financial argument" for such a program. He stated the ongoing cost of enforcement of Ordinance
No. 123, 2005 was $75,000 per year. He stated the $75,000 needed to come from somewhere and
that rental properties should be paying that cost. He stated rental properties were part of a $100
million per year industry and that this industry was currently paying nothing to the City to help keep
track of rental properties. He stated he did not believe that it was unfair to charge someone who was
generating $10,000 income per unit per year a $20 fee so that the City could pay for compliance
efforts and the cost of the registration system.
Mayor Hutchinson noted that reservations had been expressed about a rental registration program.
He stated it was important to note that this was not about "rental licensing" and that he did not
support any move toward licensing. He asked for assurance that this was not a "giant step" toward
rental licensing. City Manager Atteber y stated the staff s intent was to obtain good information for
outreach purposes, solid information for enforcement purposes, and information that could help staff
determine trends and impacts. He stated staff could not say what a future Council might want to do
392
October 18, 2005
with rental registration or licensing. He stated staff s motivation was the three purposes he had
outlined. He stated he had not heard any staffperson say that a rental licensing program was needed.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if the Council would have to act on rental licensing. City Manager
Atteberry stated Council action would be required for establishing such a program. He stated staff
had no plans to propose such a program.
Councilmember Kastein stated Ms. Sowder indicated that about 11 % of enforcement notices were
returned and that some property owners were difficult to contact about Code violations. He stated
there had been some discussion that the database would hold the names of those who were in
compliance and that those who were in violation would continue to be hard to track down. Sowder
stated it may be difficult to locate some property owners in the beginning. She stated every effort
would be made to locate non -compliant property owners to build the database. She stated building
a complete database would take some work.
Councilmember Manvel asked for confirmation that once this law was in effect the potential fine
would be $500 each time a non -compliant property owner was located. Sowder replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that there had been some discussion about a voluntary system. She
asked why that was not being considered. She stated one of her major concerns was the cost of the
rental registration program in a "difficult budget." She stated a rental registration program would
increase the "cost of government" and that the Council was also talking about other increased fees.
She stated this fee would fall on renters along with other fee and rate increases. She stated the cost
for a rental registration program would mean that something else in the budget could not be done.
She stated she would support a voluntary program. She noted that this represented major change for
rental properties. She asked why a voluntary program or "free system" would not be possible.
Sowder stated the City did not have as many problems with management companies, which were
willing to participate in a voluntary program.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a rental registration program would be counterproductive and
would just add another level of government. Heffernan stated this was "one more tool in the
toolbox." She stated data from a voluntary system would not be "solid data." She agreed that there
was value in partnering with those who were willing to cooperate on a voluntary basis but that there
would be some who would not be willing to register on a voluntary basis because there was no
motivation. She stated staff did not receive direction from the Council to develop a voluntary
system. She stated she believed that a voluntary system would still involve a staff cost.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked what would be involved in having a "homeowners" database.
Heffernan stated staff had never considered registering owner -occupied homes. Sowder stated that
in most of those cases the Assessor's database would be correct as far as mailing address.
393
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Roy stated the rental issue was many faceted. He stated if was often necessary to
increase the cost of government, as evidenced by the ballot measure that Council had put before the
voters in November. He stated the money that would be needed for a rental registration program was
a fairly small amount.
Councilmember Brown stated there appeared to be databases relating to property managers. Sowder
stated the Nuisance Code Enforcement Office had an Oracle database for violations and parcel
notations. She stated this information was not at the same level as the information that would be
required through rental registration.
Councilmember Brown asked if a lot of money would be required to develop the software and
database for the rental registration program and to maintain the information. Sowder stated that was
the most expensive piece of the registration program. Lee stated there would be a plug-in proprietary
module to fit into the enterprise -wide permit tracking system. He stated part of the initial cost would
be the licensing of about 15 users. He stated the initial one-time cost was $70,000 and that there
would be a yearly fee. He stated there would be a Web interface component to allow on-line
registration. He stated there would be a .75 FTE position dedicated to the program.
Councilmember Brown asked if there was currently a database relating to Code violations. Sowder
stated this Oracle database was maintained by the Nuisance Code Enforcement Office. She stated
there would be technical changes with the move to Building Services next year and that the current
database would be consolidated with another system.
Councilmember Brown asked if $75,000 would still be spent to track violating properties. Sowder
stated $70,000 would be spent to develop the registration piece.
Councilmember Brown asked who would have access to the information. Heffernan stated a specific
request would be required through an administrative process that would be in place, i.e. a records
request. She stated an inquiry could only be made regarding the owner of the property. She stated
inquiries would be handled on a case -by -case basis.
Councilmember Brown asked if the City would send an inspector to look at the situation rather than
taking someone's word on the violation. Sowder stated the City always verified complaints before
processing the complaint. She stated complainants could come into the office or call anonymously.
Councilmember Brown asked why it would not make sense just to have a database of violating
properties rather than registering everyone. He noted that it would be necessary to search out the
violators anyway. He asked how information about the new program would be distributed when the
City did not know who lived in the homes. City Manager Atteberry stated rental registration would
help with these problems. He stated the purpose of registration was "identification and
communication" rather than "regulation." He stated identification would help with direct
communications with rental property owners.
394
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Brown asked what the "drop dead" date was for compliance. He noted that the City
may not be able to find some property owners and that it could not be assumed that communications
had reached such property owners. Sowder stated the Ordinance provided that the property owner
would have seven days to comply with registration before the City began enforcement proceedings.
Heffernan stated the City would use many methods to find non -compliant property owners (the
media, tenants, neighbors). She stated it would take time and a targeted approach to register every
rental property owner. She stated staff would also find out how other communities have approached
the matter.
Councilmember Brown stated it would take staff hours and a great deal of time to find all property
owners. He asked if the dollars that would be spent would be "worth it." He questioned whether
the cost that had been cited was realistic. Heffernan stated there was no way to determine the staff
hours that would be involved.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt
Ordinance No. 124, 2005 (Option A) on First Reading, with an implementation date of January 1,
2007.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that Council consider the option of this "minimalist" effective
registration program. He stated this program made licensing less likely in the future. He stated
many Councilmembers have said that behavior was the main issue and that staff had indicated that
this registration program would help the City address some of those behavioral issues. He stated
rental properties were no less a business than home occupations and that there should be some sort
of database to track those businesses. He stated he did not understand the fears that had been
expressed. He stated this would not be a costly program, that it would not be a "money maker" and
that the City had no intention of doing anything else with the database. He stated other than some
start-up one-time dollars this program would pay for itself and would not compete with anything
else. He stated the $20 fee would be "incredibly low" compared with fees that would have been
charged for a licensing program. He stated this program would provide a credible way to enforce
behavioral issues and to protect family neighborhoods and the quality of life.
Councilmember Roy stated large organizations usually take the position that "if you can't measure
it, you can't manage it." He stated hard data was not readily available on the rental nuisance issue
and that it was difficult to get to the root of the problem. He stated this registration program would
allow the issue to be measured and managed. He asked the City Manager to address the funding
issue. City Manager Atteberry stated the only General Fund monies that would go into this program
would be one year of a housing compliance officer in 2007 to help enforce the first Ordinance. He
stated the registration program and ongoing funding for the compliance officer would be through
fees and fines. Heffernan stated the one-time cost would be $10,500 and that the ongoing cost would
be $73,600 for the housing compliance officer. City Manager Atteber y stated the ongoing cost to
the General Fund would be offset by fines and fees after 2007.
395
October 18, 2005
Councilmember W eitkunat stated the Council had heard about the need to register and how it would
help fix the problems. She stated she did not understand how a rental registration program would
fix the problem with rentals. She stated she understood the need for data and that the City would be
adding a program that would provide information at a cost of $155,000. She stated she believed that
there was a need to see what happened with the market over the next year and to assess the necessity
of gathering this data, as well as what kind of data needed to be collected. She stated it was unclear
what the City wanted to accomplish through collecting this data. She stated this program would add
another person to the City staff, at a cost, to gather information. She stated this would not do much
for enforcement. She stated she would prefer to see a voluntary program at this point. She
questioned whether the rental registration program would fix the problem.
Councilmember Manvel stated some property owners could not be located using the data that was
currently available. He stated if registration was required that part of the onus of locating those
property owners would be on them. He stated if they did not register that they would be in violation
of the law.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council's action on occupancy would hopefully help mitigate
the problem and suggested that the problem was mitigated to the point that a registration program
was not needed at this time.
Councilmember Manvel stated he doubted that the problem would be totally resolved through the
occupancy ordinance. He stated rental registration would make the first law that was passed
enforceable because it would enable the City to gather the information that was needed for
enforcement. He stated adding $1.50 to the cost of operating a rental unit each month was a
"minimal cost" to enable the City to have a system to help address the problem. He stated he
believed that it was worth the cost to save staff time and make the "three unrelated" ordinance more
enforceable.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding public access to information in the
database. City Attorney Roy stated he believed that this information must be accessible under the
Open Records Act. He stated there was a possibility for a local ordinance to supercede the
provisions of the Open Records Act regarding confidentiality of the information in the database.
Councilmember Kastein asked for further discussion on having a database to track all homeowners.
He asked if staff wanted information only about rental properties. He asked what kind of
information would be requested as part of rental registration that was not available right now. He
asked what kind of information the City was really after. City Attorney Roy stated staff was unable
to address some of the issues completely because of the lack of data to support any proposed
remedies. He stated the study commissioned by the City did show a correlation between behaviors
and rental properties and that it stopped short of establishing a cause and effect relationship between
violations of the occupancy rule and nuisance violations. He stated this was the kind of information
that would be more readily available if staff would be able to identify where rental properties were
396
October 18, 2005
located. He stated it was difficult to regulate a particular segment of the community unless you had
data to support a correlation between that category of properties and the problem that the City was
trying to address.
Councilmember Kastein stated there had been extensive discussion about rental registration and that
the primary focus of tonight's discussion was the occupancy limit. He stated rental registration was
not the key to enforcing the occupancy limit.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he understood that the enforcement process was complaint driven. He
stated if this was the case, he did not understand how the database was a necessary tool for
enforcement. City Manager Atteberry stated data was important for the enforcement of nuisance
violations. He stated staff was able to followup on nuisance complaints and that having this
information would expedite that job. He stated staff had brought the rental registration issue forward
at Council's direction. He stated the information that would be obtained through registration was
owner name, address, phone, property address, type of unit, agent or contact person, and the address
of the agent or contact person. He stated this was a scaled down version of the registration program
that had been discussed initially. He stated staff would make every effort to keep the cost of the
program down.
Councilmember Manvel noted that Councilmember Weitkunat was asking for benefits of a
registration program and that he had outlined one. He stated another benefit was that once rental
property owners were registered that the City would be able to contact them in the future. He stated
there was no way to contact the rental property owners at this time.
Councilmember Kastein asked if staff could look into making the database less publically accessible.
City Attorney Roy stated he could further explore the possibilities of protecting the confidentiality
of the information on the database if this Ordinance was adopted on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein asked if there was a likelihood that something could be done along those
lines. City Attorney Roy stated he would have to research the matter and that there were few
options.
Councilmember Manvel stated he had changed his point of view on this issue since the Work
Session. He stated staff had brought forth a proposal that would mean a more efficient process. He
noted that confidentiality of information may not be an issue because much of the information was
already available through other sources. He stated having the contact information readily available
"sounded right." He stated he did not believe that having a business pay $20 per year to operate was
unreasonable.
City Attorney Roy stated if the primary concern of some Councilmembers was the confidentiality
issue, he would like an opportunity to further explore the issue in a meaningful way.
397
October 18, 2005
Councilmember Brown stated he was concerned about the confidentiality issue and that he was also
concerned about the staff hours that would be involved in locating property owners that were going
to be hard to find. He stated he did not believe that the "real dollar amount' had yet been determined
to implement this program. Heffernan stated the registration requirement would apply only to single-
family and duplex units and that there were 6,500 units involved. She stated staff had estimated that
there would be an initial 70% compliance rate.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support the motion on the table. He asked why there
was an issue with confidentiality of the information in the database when much of the information
was readily available in places such as the telephone book.
Councilmember Kastein stated he did not like the idea of singling out the rental property owners.
He stated this did not seem fair.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there would be discrimination against renters if they were
identified as renters.
Mayor Hutchinson stated it appeared that Council had some questions that they would like to have
answered before Second Reading. He stated those questions focused on the cost, the possibility of
a voluntary program, and confidentiality of the information.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not support the voluntary approach. He stated the people who
would least likely be a problem would sign up voluntarily and that those who would be the most
problematic would not sign up. He stated this would take staff time to handle voluntary
registrations. He stated he did not want to have a "pretend system" in place. He stated he did not
want to see staff spend any time on the voluntary system.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to amend the main
motion to establish a rental housing code with registration (Option B).
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the amendment because she did not support
registration.
Mayor Hutchinson stated many questions had been raised and that staff would have an opportunity
to address those questions before Second Reading.
Councilmember Brown asked if the motion for Option A could be considered before the amendment
was voted upon.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the amendment would need to be voted on first. City Attorney Roy stated
there was a pending motion to substitute Option B for Option A. He stated regardless of the option
go
October 18, 2005
approved at this time that it would not preclude an amendment on Second Reading that would
include rental registration if the concerns could be satisfactorily addressed in the interim.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification that the amendment offered by Councilmember Roy
was to adopt Option B. He stated he would support that amendment at this point. He stated he
wanted to hear from the people who would oppose rental registration when this came back on
Second Reading. He stated he wanted to hear from the City Attorney at the time of Second Reading
about making the database confidential.
The vote on the motion to amend the main motion (by substituting Option B for Option A) was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays:
Councilmembers Brown and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council would consider the main motion as amended.
Councilmember Manvel stated he had a question about truth in advertising, i.e. specifying the
occupancy in all advertising. He stated the occupancy limits were "complicated" and that he would
like to know what information must actually be included in the advertising. City Attorney Roy
stated the Code provision relating to occupancy limits could be referenced in the advertising or that
the advertisement could indicate the maximum number of occupants for the specific unit. He stated
staff would come back with specific wording prior to Second Reading to help people with how to
comply.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there was confusing information presented about the number of
housing units that would be affected. She stated staff had indicated that 6,500 rental units would be
affected and that the Corona report had indicated that 5,003 displaced renters would have to find
housing elsewhere and that this would mean that there would be a need for 1,200 more units. She
stated another 1,200 rental units would have to be added to the community and that this would
indicate that there would be 7,700 people impacted. She suggested that this would mean that at $40
there would be $300,000 generated. She stated this sounded like a "moneymaker." Heffernanstated
there were 6,500 existing single-family rental units that would be affected.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Corona report indicated that there would be a need for 1,200
additional rental properties. She stated at $40 per registration there would be $300,000 generated
in registration fees. Heffernan stated not all of the renters live in single-family or duplex units and
that some live in multi -family units, which would not be part of the registration program.
Councilmember Manvel stated only single-family and duplex rentals would be registered. He stated
the assumption was a 70% registration rate initially and that fees would be collected only from those
9
October 18, 2005
who registered. He stated the City could make money and that he would hope that the program was
not a "big money loser."
Mayor Hutchinson suggested that staff bring back more information on the fee issue. He noted that
the Corona study did not consider that there could be four or five renters in a boardinghouse. He
stated there needed to be additional information provided. He stated some questions needed to be
answered prior to Second Reading and that the Council needed to hear more from the public on the
registration issue. He stated more specifics were needed before Council made a final decision with
regard to greater confidentiality, reducing costs, the number of possible registrations and how
advertisements must comply.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmember Weitkunat.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there were three more Ordinances to consider as part of this package and
that this discussion commenced prior to 10:30 p.m. City Attorney Roy stated the Council could
continue with its discussions relating to the remainder of the Ordinances included in the agenda item
and that a majority vote would be needed to continue the meeting until midnight for any other
business.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 125, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
126, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,
Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 127, 2005 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
400
October 18, 2005
Meeting Time Extended
Councilmember Weitkunat made amotion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to extend the meeting
to hear other business. Yeas: Councilmembers Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Brown.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Weitkunat noted that Mr. Brookshire requested that Council reconsider its decision
on the Hellenic Plaza rezoning. She stated Council heard rezonings only twice a year and that Mr.
Brookshire was not aware of the Council's hearing on the rezoning and was not present. She stated
he therefore felt that he was not afforded due process. She stated Council had discretion regarding
whether to reconsider the matter. City Attorney Roy stated the question was whether or not the
publication of the notice as required by the Code satisfied the due process requirements related to
the rezoning and that in his opinion the publication did satisfy the requirement. He stated Council
was not legally required to rescind the earlier action and reconsider and that it was entirely up to the
Council whether to do so.
Councilmember Roy asked if the City ever contacted Mr. Brookshire about the hearing and whether
it was possible that he did not know about the hearing. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated staff
routinely handed out the notice that was included in the Council's "read before" packet. He noted
that the applicant did ask for an extension of the application time and was granted that application
and then appeared at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. He stated the date of the Planning and
Zoning Board hearing was on the same notice as the dates of the Council hearing. He stated he had
not found anyone on staff who could be certain that the notice was provided to the applicant.
Councilmember Ohlson stated it would support reconsideration if it was important to any other
Councilmembers to do so.
Councilmember Brown stated he believed that there should be a verified notice sent by something
like certified mail. He stated if delivery of the notice could not be verified, that the applicant should
be given another chance to present his case to the Council.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to rescind the
previous action of the Council on the Hellenic Plaza Rezoning Ordinance and to reschedule it for
consideration by the Council on First Reading on November 15, subsequent to publication of another
public notice and personal contact with the applicant.
401
October 18, 2005
Mayor Hutchinson noted that this would mean that Council was rescinding the action that was taken
and rescheduling a fresh hearing.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not want this to create a precedent and that something in the
process might need to be "tightened up." He stated it would be "good government" to give the
applicant "another shot."
Councilmember Roy noted that this was a zoning issue and asked if the fact that the Council had
already taken a stance on the rezoning would appear to be prejudicial to the new hearing. City
Attorney Roy stated the issue was not that the Council's impartiality had been prejudiced by any off-
the-record contacts. He stated the Council took a position in voting and that the applicant would be
given an opportunity to try to persuade the Council to change that vote. He stated the previous vote
would not prevent the Council from conducting an impartial hearing on the evidence.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
Y 14I 5 *Y IPLKO1W-3f
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, pursuant to Section
2-2(a)(8) of the City Code to cancel the November 1, 2005 regular City Council meeting and to call
in its place a special meeting for November 2, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy, and Weitkunat. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Mayo
ATTEST:
402