7 P.M. August 12, 2002

ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL

Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding

Tom Booher
Carol Kesselman
Jackie Herbst
Bob Murphy
Jean Saum
Debbie Koop
Mike Stevens
Cheryl Wise
Barb Martin

Absent: Ray Elliott

Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Roger Noonan, City Attorney

Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.

ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

ITEM 4 - PRESENTATION - LAKEWOOD LEGACY FOUNDATION GRANTS
Eileen Schurmann, Chairperson for the Lakewood Legacy Foundation, presented grant funds to the Lakewood Commission on Cultural Diversity and Human Relations to assist with their Annual Pow-wow and to the Lakewood-on-Parade event. Kathy Stapleton, Chairperson of Lakewood on Parade, thanked the Lakewood Legacy Foundation and spoke about the many events at Lakewood-on-Parade and invited the public to participate. Bill Taylor thanked the Lakewood Legacy Foundation and spoke about the upcoming Pow-wow and the events surrounding it.

Councilman Stevens stated that the Lakewood Legacy Foundation is a non-profit organization that has been created by the business community to help fund certain charitable aspects and groups in the community. The primary charge is to help seniors and youth in the community where there are no funds available. In addition to the projects that were funded tonight, Lakewood Legacy is also a big supporter of after-school arts programs, the Clements Center, and other worthy causes. Donations are accepted from various places. People will Lakewood money, citizens donate money, and employees have money withheld, similar to what is done with the United Way. That's how the funding comes about to take care of the worthy causes in the community. He stated he serves on the Board of Lakewood Legacy and that it is an enjoyable aspect of his job.

ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 2002-53 - APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE LAKEWOOD VICTIM ASSISTANCE COMPENSATION BOARD
Councilman Stevens made a motion to adopt Resolution 2002-53. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin. Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

Councilman Stevens introduced Richard Cornwell from the audience.

ITEM 6 - PUBLIC COMMENT

The following is not verbatim testimony but is an attempt to include as much testimony to represent what individual speakers presented to City Council.-

Kim Ray - 8825 W. 4th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Ray stated she lives in the Lakewood neighborhood that sits to the north and east of Colorado Christian University. She has two children that attend South Lakewood Elementary School. She stated they walk to and from school every morning and afternoon. She was at the huge neighborhood meeting that took place last month at United Church of Christ at 1st & Carr. She stated that what she heard at that meeting disturbed her. She stated that she heard that eight to twelve college students were living in renovated houses and that sometimes indoor furniture; like couches, doors, and clothes were hanging outdoors on front lawns. College students were zooming up and down streets. Safety was a factor in her mind as children walk to and from school. They were displaying irresponsible behavior in the community where she and others own their houses. Ms. Ray stated that she takes pride in her neighborhood. It is a single-family neighborhood and to make these homes into dormitories is not in the spirit of the neighborhood. She stated that she trusts that her elected officials are finding out how to do deal with this issue. They are listening to CCU and the neighborhood association. She stated she feels very strongly that everyone needs to be listened to. Some sort of compromise will come up. An ordinance that limits the number of unrelated people living in a household should be looked at. She is somewhat angry that CCU is looking toward her neighborhood to solve its housing shortage. It is somewhat shortsighted of their Board of Directors.

Clarence Babcock- #5 South Flower Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Babcock stated he has lived at this address since 1965. He stated he was here for the CCU housing issue and a lot of people in the audience are here for the same issue and it was cancelled. He asked if it would be scheduled on an agenda in the near future and if so, when. He stated that if the City Council doesn't protect the citizens of Lakewood, he asked what they needed to do to protect themselves. He stated it is obvious that City Council's and their goals are different at times. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.

Mayor Burkholder stated that no action is being taken tonight on any housing occupancy rezoning or zoning. City Council is familiar with the details. This Council has directed staff to look at the issues and look at the protocols and procedures that are utilized in other cities. Staff is looking into that at this point. A study session has been scheduled for the 19th of August at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room in the Cultural Center. This is the process. First a study session and if Council chooses to move forward, there will be a public hearing at which time the public will have the opportunity to speak on the direction. This is an issue regarding an ordinance that has been on the books since 1979 and it just came up about six weeks ago. In many cases, if it's something you want, government moves too slowly. If it's something you don't want, it moves too fast. No decision is being made by this Council this evening.

City Manager Mike Rock stated that nothing was cancelled tonight. This was never on the Agenda tonight. It was never scheduled for tonight. At the meeting a week ago, we told everyone in attendance, there would be a study session on August 19th. Any information that was given to the neighborhood regarding a meeting this evening was simply incorrect. It was not a case where it was on the agenda and then cancelled. It was never on the Agenda for tonight at all.

Michael O'Beirne - 25 North Cody Court - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. O'Beirne stated that he appreciated the City Council's diligence in presenting the issue. He stated that he lives next to Mr. Robert Dalton, whose wife Patty, sadly passed away recently. The Daltons raised children and their children still live in the neighborhood. Their children have children still living in the neighborhood. At the end of the street are the Berrys. Three generations live in three different single-family homes, one across the street from the other two. In the face of so many changes to the fabric of society, the Daltons and Berrys exist and thrive. For nearly half a century of tradition, here among us, they live still. Our addition, is that kind of a neighborhood, and that is where I live. That's what attracted my wife and I to settle here and raise our three children. Alarmingly, however, the very character of this neighborhood, founded upon the ideals of civic interaction, the sense of permanence and unity, is in jeopardy. Connie Gonzales has lived on Dudley Street for more than 40 years. Her home is between two properties owned by Calvin Van Essen and recently renovated to serve the incoming student body of CCU. You'll have 24, young, perhaps highly morale, students as her neighbors. All perfectly legal and consistent with our zoning ordinances. These CCU students have no direct ties to the neighborhood aside from their proximity to CCU. However, Coleen Carole, in an interview in August Christianity Today Magazine, suggests that Christian students want to right the wrongs of the past. They want a more pure society based on morality and traditions. I am sure they will add their version of morality to the neighborhood. The individuals who have no sense of permanence, have no deep understanding of the character of the neighborhood. We know from David Rockefeller, a city is like a tree, it cannot survive without its center. Tradition is at the center of this issue. Lakewood must rewrite its ordinance to respect a reasonable ratio of dwellers per home. It must enforce ordinances and it must respect community values at its core, as it hopes to create a base for a thriving city, assuming respecting varying interests. A city on a hill that will act as a beacon for future generations, established with a true sense of community. I hope my children can look back on my efforts here tonight and tell their children that people really cared enough about Lakewood to do the right thing. That's what we're asking here, is that the City do the right thing, maintain the spirit of the community.

Newt Vaughan- 8663 W. Hawaii Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
Agree with all these people. They got the right idea. A couple of weeks ago or about a week ago I mentioned something about insurance and got stuck by the rug by our City Attorney saying it's a state issue. The State has already made an issue of it by requiring that all motorists carry automobile insurance. So it is our job to enforce that. Not only by our police department, but by our courts. If it was up to the state, we would quit calling ourselves a home-rule community and let the state take care of it. We have to be able to enforce the law and what I'm asking for is to go to the limits of what the law allows us to do. That means towing someone's vehicle because it is uninsured, then let's do it. If that means paying a $500,000 fine, and that's being a little ridiculous, but let's do it. Let's go to the maximum of the law. Not only from our Police Department, but from our courts. Thank you.

Jim Cowhick - 145 Estes Street -Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Cowhick thanked Council for the opportunity to speak. Begin with excerpts from Mayor Burkholder's letter in the July issue of "Looking at Lakewood." He comments, "For neighborhoods to be healthy, people have to have confidence and peace of mind in where they live. The Lakewood City Council and I firmly believe that the number one priority in maintaining that confidence is to have a City where people feel safe. However, neighborhoods have to be more than just a safe place to live. They not only involve the pride and appearance of each residential dwelling, but also neighborhoods must create a sense of place or establish an identity that strengthens Lakewood as a whole." Very well said and I agree whole-heartedly with our Mayor. Yet, recently I attended a neighborhood meeting along with 300 of my neighbors and a scattering of Lakewood officials. During the course of that meeting, we were made aware that usage of single-family homes was being changed to include dormitory usage without any public hearing or notification to the neighborhoods by the City. We learned the houses were acquired for the purpose of conversion to dormitories, housing as many as 10-12 unrelated tenants per house. It was brought to light, to many of us, that, unbelievably, Lakewood has a one person per habitable room rule, bathrooms and closets are excluded. Current regulations of 10-12 unrelated persons living in the same home are too much for the character of Lakewood's neighborhoods zoned 2R. To say the least, our confidence, peace of mind, safety, sense of place, and our identity as a neighborhood has been compromised. We as neighborhoods and the City as a whole has more than just one issue here. It goes beyond the problem of the city working with the private university and its housing shortage. I would like to ask that why is it, that we, as citizens of Lakewood, voters, taxpayers, homeowners, many for as long as almost 50 years are expected to solve Colorado Christian University's housing shortage, while undermining our neighborhoods and lessening our property values. I personally have lived next to a dormitory-style housing and a neglected rental house for nearly 12 years. We knew it was a rental house when we moved in. A single family of five lived there. They were great neighbors, a comfortable, safe, neighborly relationship, but after two years, it was decided that leasing to many unrelated individuals would make more money. In doing so, the property itself is falling apart. My neighbors and family, to this day, are not sure how many people live next door, but have estimated more than a dozen at different times. In one house there are ten Colorado School of Mines' students, coming and going all hours of the night, some just visiting, some crashing for the night or the weekend. I could go on with many horror stories, but I only have three minutes and that's going to be close. I can tell you how uncomfortable, unsafe, and sometimes intimidating we feel living next door to a half-dozen or more strangers. The City of Lakewood must clarify, revise, add new laws which protect its neighborhoods, properties, values, and citizens. I respectfully recommend limitations to 3-4 unrelated individuals and only one blood related family per household. This is in line with surrounding municipalities' laws and ordinances. The time is now and it's about time Lakewood does the same. When this is accomplished and is in the words of our good Mayor Burkholder, "Lakewood will be an even better place to live, work, and play."
Thank you for your attention.

Vicki Stack - 8890 W. 13th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm here tonight in support of redefining the household under the 2R laws. I would like for you to extend that to 1R and R1 as well. Several years ago, through the committee with at least one council member on board, defined the term single family, as it stands today. I am sure this committee approached the issue with good intent and did not realize the abuse that could subsequently follow in a few short years. This is a citywide issue and affects all homeowners not protected through covenants. Many changes are taking place in Lakewood, including, but not limited to light rail. The citizens living in single family dwellings along 13th Avenue corridor will not only face the impact light rail will bring this area, but through this ordinance, as it stands now, will also face the possibility of dormitories along the lines to meet the needs of Metro State College and Red Rocks Community College. This is not just CCU. The Eiber Plan, which was initiated and directed by the City of Lakewood and their Planning Department neglected to give the board members the definition of household when they put their plan together. The board members at that time stressed single-family, low-density housing. They had every opportunity to let these people know that single-family homes does not mean low density housing and I feel that may need to be revisited as well. I feel it is the responsibility of the Planning Department and more importantly, the City, to make sure that we, as members of the City, know the interpretation of single-family household. If we would have known this when we put our plan together, this would have given these people the opportunity for open discussion as well as an opportunity to challenge this ordinance at that time, not through CCU. We were never given that opportunity. Void the protection of covenants, communities look to the City for interpretation. This being said, an interpretation should not be so far left that it falls off the chart of reality. The information you have received from the homeowners living near CCU should assist you in defining 1R and 2R single-family homes. I feel it would behoove the Council and this City to use this as protocol. Thank you.

Robert Caoua - 8685 W. Bayaud Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight. I live directly north behind the Christian University soccer field and gymnasium. I support a reduction in the number of unrelated people that can live in a home, although I'm unsure at this time what that number should be. However, I do not think the ordinance should be changed simply because we have CCU students that may be renting in the neighborhood. CCU students renting in the neighborhood do not appear to be a problem with me, nor is the University an enemy. I feel, somehow, this issue has been portrayed as such. I, personally, do not feel these houses are being turned into dormitories. Student dormitories exist on campus. Students living in the neighborhoods are simply renters. The University overseeing the rentals is a guarantee which I feel is good for the neighborhood, even if the ordinance is changed. I do not want to see CCU forced out of the neighborhood. It has been a part of the neighborhood for quite some time and they support many different groups in the neighborhood and our community. Just to mention a few, the CCU campus is used for youth ministries, for young people all over Colorado and the surrounding states. They also support spiritual mission programs for young adults and they host soccer games for children who live in Lakewood. I also see people from our neighborhood who are using the CCU campus for walking or exercising their dogs, as well as playing football or ball with their sons and daughters. On Thursday nights, I enjoy listening to music from the University's gymnasium and by Sunday, I can hear the pleasant sounds of adults and children cheering during the soccer games. While during the week, the campus is quite peaceful. I almost forget that it is even there except when I make references to where I live. I would like to know why we are making it so difficult for the university to exist here. The students have been living in the neighborhood all along. Within the first month of school, our family got to know many of the students, by their first name, who are living in the neighborhood, as they pass by our home to access the campus. In the morning, they walk to school and smile and say, hello, and by midday they are walking up and may stop to chat for a few minutes before they continue on their way home. From my experience, the speeders, egg throwers, and late night partygoers, vandals that damage our vehicles and property, have never been CCU students, but rather some of the teenagers and young adults in our neighborhood and their friends. As Dick Hilker mentioned in his article in the August 8th Issue of the Lakewood Sentinel, CCU has never rioted after a football game or painted the school initials on the side of a mountain. The liquor store that joined the campus has gone out of business. The neighborhood is changing. The original owners of the homes are passing on and recently the homes have become available in the neighborhood. While the value of the property is increasing, the popularity for student rental is also increasing. To the point to where a local owner has even called the investor to purchase her home. I believe the property values will continue to increase as they do in any other college neighborhood as opposed to neighborhoods adjacent to high-density apartments, retails, or mega shopping centers. My concern is what would happen to our neighborhood if the CCU does move out. I certainly don't want another shopping center across the street from where I live, nor do I want the traffic in the neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Mike Mueller - 868 South Owens Court - Lakewood, Colorado
Mayor Burkholder, when you were at the study session last week, you explained to the City Council that using the City supplies and labor and to use your office to support a candidate, you emphasized that it was legal, but was it ethical? With your election upcoming, would you take donations from developers that you have raised millions of dollars in public improvement fees. Would it be legal? Would it be ethical? Saying that it is legal seems very Clintonesque and far worse than what Bob Filson did, which was both legal and ethical, you asked for his resignation. Ethically, you should tender your resignation.

Bob Johnson - 115 Estes Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm President of the Mid-Lakewood Civic Association, homeowners group which is just north of Colorado Christian University. On July 17th, Mid-Lakewood Civic Association along with Alameda Heights, hosted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the situation of dormitories in our neighborhood. Over 300 people attended that meeting. Tonight I bring you a petition signed by those in attendance. The petition asks, that you, our elected officials, enforce the current zoning laws, disallowing dormitories in R2 zoning. The petition also asks that City Council study and pass a new statute limiting the non-related number of individuals that can be in our neighborhoods. Three to four is the number that came up at the meeting from Barbara Martin taking a poll of the people and we support that and that falls in line with the numbers in other surrounding communities. I have a petition for you Mr. Mayor. (He gave the petition to the City Clerk.)

Tom Gardner - 9100 W. 4th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
I am a realtor and currently the Chairman of the Board of the Jefferson County Board of Realtors. I am speaking tonight as a citizen of Lakewood, a parent of two, and a life-long resident of Meadowlark Hills. I was born and raised at 9035 W. 4th Avenue. My Dad bought the home new and still lives there today. When my wife told me that she was pregnant with our first child, we went looking for our first home, and we bought 9100 W. 4th Avenue, right across the street from my folks' house. Growing up in Meadowlark was a wonderful experience. Everyone knew everyone on the street and they still do. That makes for a secure and homey feel to the neighborhood. It's safe. If a stranger is in the neighborhood, everyone is aware of it. As a realtor, I realize the value in that. There is pride of ownership, too. You can see it in the way the homes are kept up. Ownership may not be the right word, because there are renters in Meadowlark. Thirty-seven of the four hundred twenty-three are rented. That is about 9%, but most of those renters take pride in living here also. They have been here awhile and it's home to them, not housing. That's the big point for me. This isn't temporary for most of the residents here. Lakewood has zoning that allows for temporary housing, for more of a transient nature and this isn't it. This is single-family residential housing. It evens says in the Code, no dormitories or uses as of a transient nature. That's the part that I don't understand here. The City Council is supposed to work for the residents of the City, to protect them. The zoning ordinances are supposed to protect property values as well. As a realtor, I know why people value this area. It's the same reason that I listed for me. The feeling of safety, of security that comes from knowing who lives next door and down the street and knowing them for years. This is their home, too. So, I would ask the City Council to do their job, enforce the single-family zoning in this wonderful neighborhood. Protect the families living here as well as their property values. Don't allow an investor or two to twist the zoning created to protect the hard-working citizens who call this neighborhood home, just so they can line their pockets. Keep these neighborhoods secure and an area the City can continue to look upon with pride. If you don't do this, what's to keep this from happening in other neighborhoods in Lakewood? In your neighborhood? And maybe not with students, but anyone looking to rent a room cheap. Eight to twelve times cheap every month can add up to big dollars. I urge you to consider this.

Dorothy Wisecarver - 8655 Meadowlark Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
Neighborhoods bordering Colorado Christian University are not asking City Council for a change in the single-family zoning laws just to meet their needs. The problems with the zoning ordinance are citywide and affect every single-family residence in Lakewood, unless their specific covenants take precedence over City law. Any homeowner in Lakewood, in single-family zoning, could wake up one morning to find 8-12 unrelated people living next door because the law allows one unrelated individual per habitable room to occupy a single family dwelling. Habitable rooms include kitchens, dining rooms, dens, living rooms, basements, and bedrooms. Our neighborhood just happens to be the first targeted by investors who have found stuffing people in houses and collecting rent is a quick way to make a lot of money. We have the dormitories and rooming houses to prove it. Although the City will call them rentals. The City informs us that CCU, who advertised homes in our area, as theme dormitories for its students, have severed their contracts with the investors group who bought the homes and CCU has no control or authority over them. These homes can still house CCU students, but the City now considers them rentals. Lakewood has urged the neighborhoods to work with the University and views us as uncooperative for not doing so. What's the point, if the University has no interest, control, or authority over these rentals. On August 5th, City Council toured these houses in vans furnished by CCU and with an official of CCU acting, sort of, as a tour guide. Lakewood asked us to believe these are not dormitories and that CCU is out of the picture. I believe that if it looks like a duck, walks a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Or in this case, probably a dormitory. At a neighborhood meeting on July 17th, our Council representative, Barbara Martin, was asked for her opinion about the dorms. She stated, that as a Councilperson, she was in a quasi-judicial position and therefore couldn't give an opinion one-way or the other. She did say that, personally, she wouldn't want to live by one of these dormitories. Is it a wonder we feel confused, angry, and let down by a government that is suppose to represent us? We have no true single-family residential zoning in Lakewood. Wheat Ridge has a real sense of what a single-family neighborhood should be. They state that the intent and purpose of their single-family residential zoning is "to provide high quality, safe, quiet, and stable, low-density, residential neighborhoods and to prohibit activities of any nature that are incompatible with the low-density, residential character." That's exactly what we want for our single-family neighborhoods in Lakewood. We ask the City Council to provide this for us. Thank you.

Cheryl Howard- 520 Dudley Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I would like to ask the City Council as well, and I believe most of the issues have been covered tonight. I would like the City Council to take a look when they are meeting in their study session on the 19th at putting a limitation, preferably of three, maximum four, unrelated parties per household in Lakewood. I'm appalled at the fact that, I bought a house 2-1/2 years ago in Lakewood, and since that time, I have seen houses on either side of me become rentals and four more homes on Dudley have become rentals. My issue is, not only with CCU, but also with private investors, who it appears to me are ruining our quality of life in Lakewood. My God, just imagine how angry I would be if I had 12 CCU people next to me. But at any rate, I would like to see City Council put a limitation on the number of unrelated parties. I bought a house that I thought at the time was deemed zoned a single-family residence, not a multi-tenant building. It seems to me that because of the vague 1979 ordinance, we are now getting our single-family homes used as multi-tenant buildings. I would like to have them look at the City of Boulder, look at the City of Denver, they have a limitation of three unrelated parties per household. I think that's reasonable. I think that's fair. I believe apartment buildings and other larger multi-tenant housing units are used for folks who can't afford, maybe, a more community lifestyle. We pay property taxes, we the people, vote. I don't believe renters do a whole lot of voting, if you looked at the most recent polls. I would like for you all to take a stand here for your constituents. Thank you very much.

Bonnie Ferguson - 1420 Holland Street- Lakewood, Colorado
I am one of the board members for the 13th Avenue Coalition that borders the beginning part of Meadowlark. I would like to let you know that the 13th Avenue Coalition has to agree with the Meadowlark Hills people in regards to not putting the dormitories in the single-family residents. We worked as a board membesr with the Eiberhood Area and also tried to make that very clear in our neighborhood plan. I want to say, it's like, here we go again. We're talking about putting dorms in and sex offenders within a residential area or a planned development. The planned development is going up all over Lakewood. I know any person in this room, right now, I could simplify this, right now, for everybody who disagrees with putting these dorms in the area, stand up. What I am saying is that if I asked them to stand up, the entire audience would stand up at this point.
Mayor Burkholder stated that on the very onset, I asked that we are ladies and gentlemen up here, we ask that you treat us the same. Everyone has gotten up here and very articulately given us their point of view. We are taking notes so when we meet on the 19th. Let's have mutual respect this evening, please.

Bonnie Ferguson - The thing is that with dormitories and sex offenders being placed in a single residential neighborhood does have a very unfavorable position with the citizens of Lakewood. I think we would all be very willing and able to put one in our own area, if each and every one of you would put one right next to your house first. The thing of it is, that's not going to happen because none of you want it next to your house. Well, we're in the same boat. The thing of it is, what I want to make very clear is, are you on the citizens side, are you on the CCU side, or the sex offenders side? How will we know? We'll know by your vote. I guarantee you we will remember how you have voted. Thank you.

Councilman Stevens stated that at no time is the Council considering anything involving sex offenders in residential neighborhoods. That is not being considered. I just wanted to clarify that so there isn't any misunderstanding. You also said, residential neighborhoods. I want to clarify that it is not even PD. It is industrial and commercial zones only. That's another agenda item, but I do not want anyone to be misled, because residential neighborhoods are not up for discussion on this item.

Councilman Booher - We are talking about 100 feet from residential neighborhoods. So, I don't want to play games tonight with back and forth, but let's all speak with what is really happening.

John Gurley - 35 Field Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Good evening. I live on one of CCU's drag strips. I brought some photographs with me that I would like to show the Mayor, City Council about how CCU's employees impede our neighborhood.

Mayor Burkholder asked Mr. Gurley to give the photographs to the City Clerk and she will have copies made for Council.

John Gurley - Photographs are worth 1000 words. What we have at #5 Field Street are a family of intimidators that were brought in, I solely believe, three years ago, to intimidate the residents. We have a family of convicted felons. We have gang bangers, Mexican gang bangers. The colors, the vehicles, the hand signs, the obscene language and if we don't like it, we are to move. I've been in contact with Kathie Beard. She has seen some of these pictures, as has Internal Affairs. I'm upset. I don't know where to go next. I'd be interested in your input. I'm a trained photographer, I plan to keep shooting pictures. Thank you.

Janean Scott - 30 Field Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm right down the street from CCU. First of all, I would like to know how many of you live in the neighborhood that will be affected if this R1 zoning change is made. Now, I would like to ask you, how many of you would be willing to lose the equity in your home and the quality of your neighborhood to accommodate the housing needs of the college? We purchased our homes in the neighborhoods because of the high quality and safety that has been maintained for many years. Many of the homeowners in this neighborhood have invested money to fix up these homes by adding on porches, decks, and rooms. If this proposed ordinance passes, all of that work and investment will be a loss. If you change the zoning from R1, we will suffer a tremendous loss in our investments. More and more homes will be put up for sale. Anybody will be able to purchase these homes, not just CCU and they will be turned into apartments. I beg you to look around the neighborhoods that have been taken over by apartments and duplexes. They are no longer communities. They are overrun by transients. There is trash laying out all over the place. The streets, the sidewalks, the driveways are packed with vehicles to accommodate all the people living in the homes. I ask you to please respect our rights and our investments and leave our neighborhood alone.

Councilwoman Martin asked to clarify her opening statement. We are not changing R1 zoning. That is not part of the situation here and I believe you are in R2 anyway. We are not changing the zoning, we are looking at the number of inhabitants in homes in R1 zoning.

Bryanna Priddy - 30 Field Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I just wanted to say that issues like this affect people of all ages and I'm opposed to it.

John Meeker - 160 South Allison - Lakewood, Colorado
I ask that you not allow any further development of dorms. No matter what you call them, they are dorms. My wife and I both grew up in Denver that had Hutchison Homes identical to the ones in the neighborhood north of the University. There is no way you can put 10-12 people in such a small house and have them be a happy, viable, productive group. We also question the soundness of allowing this type of activity to go on when you are looking at anywhere from 7-12 additional vehicles per house that has this type of designation. If you want to get an idea of traffic, take a look at the Cherry Creek Area, where people often double park, where residents have to have parking passes. I just find this as something that is not compatible with Lakewood as we bought into it and we would like to see it grow. We see a disturbing trend in the City of Lakewood trying to encourage developers to put in high-density housing. For instance, we had a proposal for 200+ units to go in just north of Alameda next to the medical center. It seems as though the idea is to pack in as many people into Lakewood as possible. That's not why we live here. We encourage you to review the process and to hold all developers, whether they be for small investment people or large concerns, and hold them to the same standard that you hold us people when we want to add a room on, when we want to do something the zoning people are right on us. It seems like the University is getting preferential treatment. Thank you.

Dave Wolf - 18 Balsam - Lakewood, Colorado
I am President of West Alameda Heights Homeowners Association, co-sponsor of the public meeting. I would like to read to you two definitions. First of all, household means only the following: A) any family or B) any number of unrelated individuals or related and unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per habitable room, which is being used for living purposes. Then the definition goes on to say, "for the purposes of this definition, living together as a single housekeeping unit is generally characterized by a family-like structure and/or a sharing of responsibility associated with the household in a concept of functioning as a family unit with the sense of permanency as opposed to the transient nature of a bed and breakfast, motel, hotel, or dormitory." Now I would like to read a variation of that definition. Household means only the following: any family or any number of related individuals or related and unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per habitable room which is being used for living purposes. Period. End of definition. Okay, that's a definition and a variation of that definition. Another one, dormitory, a building containing living and sleeping facilities for students of a college or university and which may contain study areas and/or shared kitchen/dining facilities. Now a variation on that definition, dormitory, any building containing living and sleeping facilities for a college or university and which may contain study areas and/or shared kitchen and dining facilities, but only if controlled or operated by a university. Definition and a variation. Now the definitions as you probably know are right out of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by City Council. The variations are modifications to these definitions which staff is using with the concurrence of the City Attorney to allow dormitories in our single-family areas. Now, I'm not an attorney. I'm only a simple practitioner of the English language and these modifications have a fundamental difference with the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance that this Council passed. Let me give another example, just to reinforce this point. In the Zoning Ordinance there is a definition of motor fuel filling and service stations and it says a retail establishment at which vehicles are serviced, especially with fuel, oil, air, and water and where ancillary repair, maintenance, or replacement of electrical and mechanical devices may be obtained. Now, what if staff interpreted that definition to be what I read plus, but only when controlled or operated by an oil company. Now, would that be an interpretation or would that be a modification of the ordinance. An again, I'm not an attorney, but I think I know enough about the way the City conducts business. Only the City Council can modify ordinances. City staff is usurping its authority by taking these definitions and modifying them and changing their fundamental statement. I think it's up to City Council to see that staff enforces the ordinances as they were passed by City Council, not as they are modified by City staff. Thank you.

Tom Johnson - 396 Garland - Lakewood, Colorado
We moved into our home in 1964. We had it built. We love this neighborhood. It's a great area. A couple of years ago, the house behind us was sold to an investor who had people from this Colorado Christian University staying there. This house had been a single-family house since we moved in. The house went downhill. The ground went downhill. They had irrigation water. They did not use it. The yard was terrible. They were putting garbage in the backyard. There were cars parked in the front. In other words, we felt our house was losing value and property values are going down because that house was not being taken care of. In other words, there were persons living there, but there was no responsibility. What kind of a doing is that? That is not right for a neighborhood and it is not fair. Now, about the school itself, it would seem to me that if the school is a Christian school, they would highly be against having a busy neighborhood by these dormitory houses. Anybody knows that. Also, we had a music major living there, which had never heard of John Phillip Sussa. I don't understand that either. There are dormitories living in a single-family neighborhood. It is a single-family neighborhood. It's bad news and we know that. When a single-family neighborhood is scheduled for that, it means strictly as a single-family neighborhood. We have people who are abusing the zoning regulations and getting away with it. I believe it is wrong. You take, for example, investors think they can use this property anyway they want to. If you drive a car, you're not permitted to go any which way you want. You go 60 M.P.H. down a neighborhood street, you're going to get ticketed. The same should go for the property of a home. There are limitations, moral and legal ones also. I believe you should take a very serious look at this dormitory business. With too many dormitories, our property value goes down and our standard of living goes down with it. We don't want a tenement neighborhood and either do you. I think I'll stop now. Thank you.

Catherine Etherton - 70 S. Dover Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I grew up in a very small agricultural town and even though while I was growing up, I often chaffed at knowing all of my neighbors and my neighbors knowing me, as an adult, those are my roots. As an adult, those are my roots and when I moved into Lakewood six years ago and purchased my home at 70 S. Dover, that is exactly what I wanted for my children. I wanted to know Alice across the street. I wanted to know Kay next door. I wanted my children to be able to walk to South Lakewood Elementary and to Lakewood High School and to Creighton Middle School safely and knowing their neighbors. I am encouraging City Council to enforce the current ordinance. Please don't play with the words. Please enforce it as it's written. I also support the addition of occupancy limitations for the City of Lakewood. I lived in Boulder for many years. I certainly understand what those occupancy limitations mean for a community and I do believe that they are very important. I also have a challenge here for everybody tonight who cares about this neighborhood, and most especially, for City Council. That challenge is that each and everyone of us who has a care and concern here, we can wait for a new ordinance to be passed, but that doesn't do me a bit of good as a neighbor in this community. I need to work with my neighbors at 80 S. Dover as they begin to move in today. City Council, you need to help facilitate and be liaise between Colorado Christian University, the homeowners associations, and the neighborhood to be sure the situation doesn't become a catastrophe and the homeowners associations, you need to do the same as well. I will be going next-door tomorrow morning, as soon as I know the neighbors are up, and introducing myself. I met two of the young women who will be moving in this fall and I intend to make sure that I know them and they know me and that I have some phone numbers. If there are problems, if that happens, parents, CCU, and police will be involved. Thank you.

Arlene Glatthar - 25 S. Everett Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I bought my home 15 years ago and I certainly have noticed a lot of changes in my neighborhood. There are many more rental houses in our neighborhood than have been there in the past and the rental home that is across the street from me has changed occupants every year. I think with rental housing does come a lack of permanence, but I'm not sure that that is just limited to when there are students or when there aren't students. We know that it is common to have student housing around universities. My son lives in a house with his housemate outside of Hastings College in Nebraska and I'm grateful that his neighbors are welcoming to him and to the people that live there. I'm not sure that approaching this in terms of the ordinances is going to necessarily help everyone because I have a friend who bought a house in Boulder this summer with the intention of renting it to students. I asked her how she got around the limitation of three-unrelated people and she said two of them came to her and said they are cousins and it's not her job to check their birth certificates. So, I'm not sure that the unrelated piece is going to help the people that are concerned. In addition, if the word dormitories seem to be an issue, the homeowners only have to rent to a couple of non-students and it's no longer a dormitory. It seems to me that I am grateful living in CCU's neighborhood, that this is not a CU, that this is not a CSU. It seems to me that it is to our advantage to establish a working relationship with CCU and with the owner of the houses, and with the students, to not have an adversarial relationship, but to have a working relationship on issues as parking or other types or issues. I want to be welcoming to all my neighbors, whether they are renters, homeowners, or students. I would not mind having a house with students next to me.

Jordan Cassel - 415 Dudley Street - Lakewood, Colorado
My wife and I whole-heartedly concur with Tom Gardner, Dorothy Wisecarver, and the rest of the opposition to the dormitory housing, in regards to CCU. If I could just quickly mention, last week I just returned from Glenview, Illinois after attending my late grandmother's services. Her and my grandfather lived in their house for 61 years, same phone number, same address. I just want to share with you that the things that the neighborhood people had to say about my grandmother and what she did for her neighborhood would touch all of your hearts in ways that you can't imagine at this point. I just want you to do what is right and when it comes time to motion on this subject, you do what your heart tells you to do. Thank you.

Anne Beaudette - 515 Dover Street - Lakewood, Colorado
My husband and I moved in there 40 years ago in 1962 and our neighborhood, at least recently, is really changing. It is not just the college, it is also more than single-family dwellings. Up the street in the 400 block of Dover, we have five white vans with ladders on the sides of some business. They have made most of the front yard into a driveway. We have three more cars of theirs parked on the front. So there has got to be more than one family dwelling there. I urge you to keep our neighborhood in one family dwelling. I want to reiterate that I agree with Dorothy Wisecarver and Tom Gardner. Cheryl Howard is our backdoor neighbor, now we have two different houses in the back of us that are rentals. One of them, I don't know if they are college students or not, but they party on a Monday Night, they party during the week, and they party on the weekend. Sometimes until 3:00 in the morning. That is not fair. I see many of my neighbors here tonight that have lived in Meadowlark Hills longer than the 40 years that we have lived. I urge you, please, to keep it single family dwelling. We do have a long memory when it comes to voting. Thank you.

Sue King - 9637 W. Ohio Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
(Did not wish to speak. Stated her views had been expressed already.)

Peggy Phillips - 1061 S. Independence Court - Lakewood, Colorado
(Did not wish to speak. Stated her views had been expressed already.)

Polly Whiteside - 75 Dover Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I have lived here off and on for 48 years since my parents bought that home new. I now own the home and I would like to add my voice to the impassioned and well-spoken voices that have already spoken here tonight to ask for a limitation of 3-4 unrelated homes in a single family dwelling. Thank you.

Kathy Knoebel -7616 W. 9th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Former City Councilor, past board member of Eiberhood, President of Rural Acres Homeowners Association, and board member of 13th Avenue Coalition. The City has promoted the formation of homeowners and neighborhood organizations for years. They've supported grants for neighborhood improvements and enhancements. As a City staff member and a Council person on the board of Citizens for Lakewood's Future, the City also sponsors neighborhood plans, the Planning Academy, Neighborhood Watch, and a host of many other programs and opportunities in which Lakewood citizens may partake to unify their community. Under the leadership of Mayor Burkholder, neighborhood coalitions were created to solidify the good intentions of the City to make Lakewood a great place to live, work, and play. During my Council term, the Council worked feverishly for over six months amending zoning ordinances to protect our neighborhoods from the real and perceived negative impacts of group homes for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. An individual purchased two homes within former Mayor Linda Morton's neighborhood for these people. The end result was a stack of legal papers, a foot tall, restricting that kind of living quarters within neighborhoods. The attorneys were also kept busy finding legal ways to limit the adult book stores within our community, preventing pawn shops from over-clustering in neighborhoods, continues to supply job security for our legal team. The agenda tonight asks for Council support of an intergovernmental agreement relating to the housing and treatment of juvenile sex offenders and the regulating of crematories. I presume these, too, would be in the best interest of Lakewood residents. These actions and many more demonstrate the City's strong commitment to keeping Lakewood safe and maintaining the quality of life the citizens have come to expect. Tonight, many citizens here are requesting and expecting the same due diligence, neighborhood preservation, and seeking the same results that you have provided in the past, support and protection. No one desires to live near pawnshops and adult bookstores or amongst sex offenders, recovering drug addicts, and alcoholics, and now unsupervised college teens. Perhaps the City could suggest lease/purchase available town homes and/or apartment buildings and encourage the use of public transportation. Colleges and universities are not obligated to provide dormitory or other housing facilities for all students. Lakewood citizens continue to meet Council's scrupulous decisions to support and preserve a standard of excellence within each community. Thank you. I would also like to add that unfortunately, the letter the City submitted to you and to the neighborhood associations was not in tune with its past performances. Responses were vague, unrelated, and offered unnecessary opinion. Truly, an embarrassment for Council and not in keeping with your pledge of open communication in a friendly manner. I have to concur with David Wolf's comments regarding usurping your authority. Thanks again.

Dorothy Clinard - 535 Dover Street - Lakewood, Colorado
My husband and I and four sons have lived in that house for 50 years. I feel badly for CCU. I think they have good intentions and I know they are short of money, but that does not give them the privilege to confer with the Council to make our neighborhood a ghetto. On the corner of 6th and Dover, the Council has allowed paved over lawns for eight vehicles, six of which are panel trucks. Next door to them, there is a driveway that has seven panel trucks parked and more on the street. I think this is an unconscionable assault to Meadowlark Hills. We have a covenant that goes from Carr to Garrison. I am sorry the covenant has been destroyed and that you have no respect for it. Thank you.

Diane Cauau - 8685 W. Bayaud - Lakewood, Colorado
This owner, Calvin Van Essen, has purchased these homes for us to use as student housing. I understand, however, that CCU was to have control of these homes, limiting the number of students, cars, and a supervision person in each home. These students are required to live with no smoking, drinking, and late nights. Now, all that has changed without the help of CCU. Now the investor can rent out these homes to students or the use of government agency housing. Single-family homes are what we want. If these houses turn into rentals for single-family homes, they are not the permanency of a homeowner either. Too many rentals in a neighborhood will begin to show. Renters have the lack of money or caring of what the property looks like on the outside. These students have already been moving in and are going to be here. I feel that until this issue is solved, that CCU should be in control of these homes for the upkeep and the promises that CCU have said that they would do in our neighborhood for us. I would like to know that I have someone to call at CCU when I have a complaint. I hope we can work as good neighbors with CCU as good neighbors and respect these students while they are here until this is finalized. Thank you.

Carolyn Jorgensen - Moore Subdivision - Lakewood, Colorado
My husband and I bought our first house in Moore Subdivision in 1963. We own four rentals in Moore Subdivision and these people would be hard pressed to find and pick my homes out from any of the rest of the homeowners in that community. We were under the impression we were under covenants. Single family. We have rejected for 38 years renting to singles until we started being afraid of the gay situations because we didn't know if we were doing wrong there. We never had that come up. We had one home in the Alameda Heights Subdivision and everybody in the neighborhood loves our tenants. They ask how we pick such good people. Thirty-eight years of interviewing and talking to people helps. If you put a limit of 3-4 people into a house. My husband and I raised 7 children in our house at 30 Dudley. One of them went to school with Tom Gardner, there. We love the community. We do take care of it and we do rent to families. We've had the Director of Music Education at the Baptist Church live in one of our homes for three years, one of them. We've fought for this and having the dormitory situation is scary to us. We do have three singles living in a house, they happen to be three brothers. They have been there five years. That's on Cody Street. They have all been good renters. We get rid of the bad ones. I think we don't need a dormitory. Thank you.

Amelia Sutton - 2349 South Yukon Court - Lakewood, Colorado
My concern is that in my neighborhood now, we have a lot of rentals. We have one across the street from us which now has at least five boys living there. On a weekend, there is nothing to having 10-12 cars parked in our little cul-de-sac and along the side of our house. We don't know who's going and who's coming. They arrive sometimes at 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning and sometimes they break up a party around that time. They are very noisy and we would like to see something done about how many people can live in a home. Thank you.

Linda Houseley - 8995 West Bayaud Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
I have lived next door to a rental for almost six years now. I have been very open and actively resistant to continue to live next door to this type of rental. There have been 10-12 college students in this home for almost six years. There were girls for a brief period of time and there were problems with both genders. Different kinds of problems, but none the less, problems. I was always very intimidated, being a single person, to go over to the house, knock on the door, and approach these young people, especially, when there were men there. I have to tell you, I spoke to Mr. Van Essen two weeks ago about the bringing in of new kids into the house next door and he told me that if this does not go through, he intends to start suing us homeowners individually. So, first I was intimidated by the people in the house and now I'm being intimidated and afraid of losing everything I have worked so hard for for years, by the investors. We really need your support. For the past two months, the home next door to me has been vacant. It's as though I am in the eye of a hurricane. I laid in bed three or four weeks ago and I couldn't go to sleep because there was something really askew and it finally occurred to me what it was, it was called quiet. For the first time in six years, there wasn't noise next door and I'm talking about an inappropriate noise level. It was peaceful. It was the way I remembered it to be the first nine years I lived in my home. Now, when the tour came through two weeks ago with of the vans, I did walk over next-door and I met the Colorado Christian University representative who was giving the tour to City Council. He told me at that time, Mrs. Houseley, if you have a problem, all you have to do is pick up your phone and call the College. That sounds all well and fine, but you need to know that I have four children that I raised in that house. I have raised my children, they are grown, they are now raising their children. I don't want to supervise someone else's kids. I don't want to pick up the phone and have to call at 3:00 in the morning or if there is trash out on the street or if there are 14 vehicles out front. That's not my responsibility. I'm nearing retirement. I want to enjoy my peace. I recently, this passed week, put my home on the market because I don't want to go through another six years of this, but today, I talked to my realtor and I think I'm going to stay where I am and put my trust in City Council and hope that you will take us very seriously, very earnestly. I thank you for your time.

Laurie Peterson-Mustard - 50 Yarrow - Lakewood, Colorado
I live next door to the rental that the lady was speaking of and thank you for finally getting some good tenants in there. She does have three single boys. They are single fathers. They do a great job. Prior to them, I had a family in there that you didn't' know who was coming, who was going, couldn't keep a count on heads. Young teenage boys urinating on our lawn, children rocking our garage doors. When we called Lakewood and the Police responded, their comment to us was, but they are all related, they can have 50 children, 50 teenagers. They can have as many people living in this house as they want because they are a family. They all are related. Now, if there were any of them that didn't belong there because they weren't related, then we could help you. If they weren't related, we could help you. That is what the Lakewood Police Department has told us. They're gone and we do have wonderful tenants next door in our rental home. I also live across the street from a vacant house that has been remodeled, reconstructed, windows gutted out, not so people can get out but so the Fire. Dept. can get in. They have revamped the house. We have had bags of grass clippings sit in the gutter for as many as three weeks, trash left out. I guess the thing that I'm nervous about is school is going to start very soon. People are already moving into these homes. What will happen to these kids once they have moved in and you guys decide what you're going to do, are you really going to have the ump behind you to say you gotta get out after they have already moved in and have started their school? That is what's got me nervous is because school's ready to start. Where will they go? That's all I have to say, thanks.

Councilman Booher stated that Council will deal with a very serious issue after awhile and is concerned about bantering back and forth and spinning words about what it really is and the other person saying what it really is. He stated they need to talk very clearly because as we saw this weekend, a flyer went out and it spun it up a little bit and then we try to spin in defense of what we're doing. I also want to take a minute to thank you for coming out. It's good to see you really involved in the community and unfortunately this has got a negative air to it, but sometimes that's what forces the community to come together, and, hopefully, we'll see a lot more involvement and a lot more paying attention to what is going on. I certainly feel for your situation. I went to a Christian School and we didn't always talk about Jesus. I guess I'll take a moment and apologize to y'all because I can't go back and apologize to my neighbors and certainly appreciate what you've gone through. Thank you.

Councilman Murphy congratulated the audience for their passionate activism. This is the way you solve problems, to get involved. He encouraged them to work with the University. I know that's not a popular position. I see this as a three-pronged approach. Council needs to look at all the facts and may possibly revisit the ordinance. You, in the short term, should work with the University and several speakers referred to that fact. It may help remedy the situation this fall when school starts. In the long term, I think we need to look at some large land use issues out there. We're looking at some drainage issues that may allow us to recover some land and allow them to build more housing. It is a complex, multi-faceted problem. I congratulate you for coming out tonight and please work with the University.

Councilwoman Wise thanked all the citizens for coming out tonight. This is a very serious issue and the question was asked earlier, do any of us live in the neighborhood? Yes, I do live in that neighborhood. I moved to that neighborhood for the very same reasons that were spoken here tonight. It was that long standing sense of stability that drew me to that neighborhood and that is what I'm up here to protect and I have publicly stated it before, and I'll publicly state it again. I do think the numbers that are allowed under the existing ordinance are too high and staff is moving forward in researching existing ordinances from other cities and they are prepared to bring information to us at the study session on the 19th so that we can take action on this. We are a society of laws and laws are driven by processes and we have to adhere to the process. As Mayor Burkholder stated earlier, government moves slow when it's something that you want and we do want this, but we are obligated to follow the laws that we are elected to uphold. I deeply appreciate all the views that were brought forward here tonight. It's an uncomfortable situation and I am here to try to correct this ordinance. We can't fix it if we don't know there's a problem and now we certainly know there is a problem. Work with us and bear with us as we get through this process. Thanks.

Councilman Stevens stated that it's important to make sure that you have the correct information and that you understand what it is we're going to be looking at. We are going to be seriously looking at this ordinance that has been on the books for 20 some odd years. What has come recently, that I think perhaps needs a little bit of explanation, is the interpretation of what that ordinance is and as Council we rely upon our City Attorney to be able to interpret what is currently on the books. As a result of that, we are having a study session to look at what changes might need to be made, and what language needs to be cleaned up and clarified. This is not a situation where we're trying to ignore what's already there. It's a question of interpretation, and currently we do have to rely on what is there. We do intend to look at it closely. Your comments have been heard and noted. We promise you that we will not shortchange this process. We will go forward. We will do our homework and we will make a decision.

Councilwoman Martin stated she would like to clarify a couple of things Mrs. Wisecarver had said about the meeting at the church at 1st and Carr. Yes, I did say something about it being quasi-judicial and I also retracted that statement and apologized. We are often so conditioned not to talk about a zoning ordinance and of course, this is not a zoning ordinance change. It is a definition change and so I did apologize and I did withdraw my statement and she didn't mention that part. I also wanted to say, that I did say, that I wouldn't want to live next door to some of these homes, but I would like to clarify that as well. Some of you said you live next door to several renters and it works out fine. I wouldn't mind living next door to someone like that, but I wouldn't want to live next to the horror stories that I've heard through email and through phone calls. Cheryl and I had toured one of the homes the day of the meeting on July l7th and I was out of town for the second tour.

Mayor Burkholder stated that we would move forward in a very liberative process on this. It will be very open. It is an issue we certainly have to address. An ordinance has been in place over 20 years and we started to hear of problems about mid-June. Up until now, we've been moving forward and the ordinance has served us well. I think it's certainly time that we review it.

City Manager Mike Rock stated that on the 19th there will be a study session. The study session will be to review the '79 ordinance and at that meeting, staff will bring to you both information regarding ordinances from other cities that may be applicable and also we'll present to you an initial outline of options. Those options would include redefining habitable rooms. The definition could be narrowed or could be tied to a minimum square footage requirement, either minimum square footage for the house itself or a certain amount of square footage per individual. We'll also review with you, the alternative of setting an absolute limit in the number of unrelated individuals and talk to you about how those numbers might work. There might be a third alternative of melding those two and redefining habitable rooms, but coupling with an absolute limit on the number of unrelated individuals. If you choose to make changes, then staff will need to prepare revisions to various ordinances in the Code that contain those definitions so there aren't any gaps. That process would go through Planning Commission and then back to City Council and that process would involve a number of public hearings before final adoption. Also, as part of that discussion, we will discuss the enforcement issue. If changes are made, how it might be best to enforce it. We have also encouraged Colorado Christian University to work with the neighborhood voluntarily to limit the number of cars, the number of students, and we continue to encourage that kind of discussion and have tried to facilitate that discussion. Finally, a number of Council and myself have had meetings with some of the neighborhood leaders and their attorney to try to make sure that they are included in the information we have. It is scheduled for the 19th.

Mayor Burkholder stated that regarding his actions and use of the letterhead, because I believe you deserve an answer on that particular issue here the challenge was made, was it legal and if it was, was it ethical? Those of you that know me, and all the years I've lived here in Lakewood, and in my business, two of my core values involve honesty and accountability. I firmly believe that. I've said that since I've been elected Mayor. Let me give you a little background on how this all came about and I'll be brief. This spring, I was approached by four of the candidates that are running in the new 7th Congressional District. One of those candidates asked me for his endorsement. I did endorse him as a resident of Lakewood and as a person who has been a supporter of the City of Lakewood. Regrettably, the letter was written on my letterhead and in retrospect, and with people that I respect that I talked with, that was an inappropriate thing to do. I say that to you publicly. I said it last Monday and I also will be stating that in Looking at Lakewood. A lot of elected people endorse candidates. As I said, where I made the mistake, is that I put it on my letterhead as the Mayor of the City of Lakewood. I love this City and I really want to do what we can to make this a very viable community and improve the quality of life and that's why I appreciated the comments that were brought out tonight. Let me assure you that no taxpayer dollars were used on this. We looked up and calculated $2.35. I wrote the letter. I emailed it to my Executive Assistant. It was put on my letterhead. I personally mailed it to the candidate's house. Regrettably, that candidate's campaign committee sent the letter out without a return address or disclaimer. It appeared that the City of Lakewood, to some people that didn't know, was endorsing a candidate. That is not the fact. The City of Lakewood did not endorse this candidate, nor would it be ethical for the City to endorse a candidate. Again, no taxpayer dollars were used. Did I make an inappropriate action? Yeah, I did. It won't happen again. I probably won't even endorse a dogcatcher in the future. I got 15 calls from people in a City of 144,000. Of those 15 people, there were people I deeply respect. I had to tell the citizens of Lakewood where I stood on the issue. I continue to believe in being accountable and I continue to be very involved and in my professional career, that is one thing that has made me reasonably successful.

CONSENT AGENDA - The following items from the Consent Agenda were read into the record by the City Clerk.

ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION 2002-49 AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT WITH THE 640 IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD'S OVERHEAD CONVERSION FUND TO BE USED AT THE STEVINSON/DENVER WEST CENTER PROJECT

ITEM 8 - RESOLUTION 2002-50 - ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

ITEM 9 - RESOLUTION 2002-51 APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH McLAUGHLIN WATER ENGINEERS FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE LENA GULCH STABILIZATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ITEM 10 - RESOLUTION 2002-52 REAUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INLINE SKATING RINK AND APPROVING ENTERING INTO A SINGLE SOURCE CONTRACT WITH MZI/ZIRBEL PANEL FABRICATIONS, INC. FOR ACQUISITION OF A HOCKEY RINK SYSTEM

ITEM 11 - ORDINANCE O-2002-27 - REPEALING AND REENACTING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL; THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, 2002 EDITION; AND THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; AND THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, AND ESTABLISHING THE PENALTIES

ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE O-2002-29 AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR 20 FEET OF PROPERTY SOUTH OF 8525 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE IN EXCHANGE FOR A QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE 30 FEET NORTH OF THE SECTION LINE ADJACENT TO THE SAME PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

ITEM 13 - ORDINANCE O-2002-30 AMENDING CHAPTER 9.80 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES

ITEM 14 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt June 27, 2002
Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt July 11, 2002
Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting
Commission on Cultural Diversity May 1, 2002
And Human Relations
Board of Appeals June 4, 2002

Councilwoman Wise removed Item 8 from the Consent Agenda and placed it under General Business on the Agenda.

Councilman Murphy stated that the reason it is being pulled from the Consent Agenda is because it is not appropriate to approve a resolution establishing a fee for an ordinance that has not yet been passed.

Councilwoman Wise removed Item 11 regarding the International Building Codes from the Consent Agenda and placed it under General Business on the Agenda. She stated she would like to have it pulled for the purpose of scheduling a study session prior to asking City Council to vote on it.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to accept the minutes of Boards and Commissions; and ordered all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Lakewood Sentinel with public hearing set for the dates included in the ordinance; and ordered the adoption of resolutions, all of which were included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder called a 10-minute recess.

Mayor Burkholder reconvened the meeting at 9:05 P.M.

Mayor Burkholder recognized Boy Scouts from Lakewood High School who were in the audience.

ITEM 15 - ORDINANCE O-2002-25 - ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE FIVE OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 5.25 REGULATING CREMATORIES

Councilman Murphy stated that back in September of 2000, he started getting calls about a situation at a facility called Rushton Crematory at 747 Sheridan Blvd. The situations were euphemistically called "upsets." They entailed smoke, noxious fumes, and particles spewing into the air and through the neighborhood. Repeated visits to the facility did result in occasional improvements, but nothing that lasted. As we investigated the enforcement angle on this, it became apparent that the existing enforcement that was under the jurisdiction of Jefferson County was simply insufficient to do the job. Enforcement was based on something called opacity, which required that a trained smoke reader take the telephone call about the smoke coming out of the stack, jump into his car from the Jefferson County Government facility in Golden, speed to this facility, and then try to make an analysis as to whether this upset was in violation or not. The City was simply unable to enforce what was a very unsavory situation. Our staff, Brian Nielsen, our attorneys, and consultants went to work on this and consulted with the neighborhood. The neighborhood has been extremely patient and extremely helpful. What we came up with is an ordinance that will require any crematory in the City to place a meter on the smokestack. That meter will automatically read the condition of the smoke and we will get those reports once a month and we will know if they are in violation or not. A study session was held a few weeks ago and all of Council got very familiar with it. We saw some video that most of us will never forget.

Public Comment:

Bob Fisher - 880 Benton Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I am here to support the ordinance regulating the operation of crematories. At this time, I would like to thank Brian Nielsen and Richard Plastino for the hard work and the endless hours that were involved in putting this ordinance together. Rushton Cremation Service has and still is polluting the air we all breath. Many of us in the Two Creeks Neighborhood haven't been calling in recently to file a complaint against Rushton, not because Rushton has corrected any of the problems, but because we realized the situation was coming to a head with the proposed ordinance. We wanted Mr. Nielsen to be able to turn his attention to other items he needed to take care of in Lakewood. However, on Sunday evening at about 8:00 p.m. on July 7th, this year, we observed two young men that appeared to be teenagers in the Rushton facility. It seemed odd that two young men would be in a cremation service on a Sunday evening at 8:00. We observed black smoke coming out of the smokestack of Rushton Cremation Services at that time, so we made a call to the Police and filed a report. The Police responded, as did West Metro. It turned out that the young men actually worked for Mr. Rusthon, cremating bodies. In our opinion, it is another reason to pass the ordinance, which will require proper training of anyone that works these facilities and will also put into effect a continuous monitoring system to check the pollution that comes out of there rather than have the operator and owner of the crematory inspect himself.

Susan McConnell - 895 Benton Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Brian Nielsen and Bob Murphy for listening to and acting on a serious issue in the Two Creeks community. Our community supports the crematory ordinance. After attending the study session on the crematories, I know you will all lend your support in passing the crematory ordinance. Thank you so much for helping to make Lakewood a better place to live, work, and play.

Kim Baker - 885 Benton Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Good Evening. I'm also here to thank Mr. Brian Nielsen and the Department of Public Works, as well as Councilor Bob Murphy, on all their hard work on the crematory ordinance that you will be passing this evening. From the very beginning, everyone hearing our story was appalled. But, there is a big difference in being shocked and doing something about it. These gentlemen listened to us, researched the problem, came up with a plan, and followed through, crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's. They followed the process. Please honor their work this evening and continue to address the concerns of the voters by voting yes on the crematory regulation. Thank you.

Cod Mayor - 502 W. 9th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Supports the ordinance, but did not wish to speak.

Jan Kessler - 5389 W. 8th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
It was not that we were hyper vigilant in trying to keep this company from operating in a normal fashion. It was simply a matter of trying to enjoy your breakfast on any day of the week and your house filling with acrid smoke and you run to try to close the doors and windows to get it out, but then you've trapped it in. It's the most horrifying smell. I am just so grateful to know that there is potentially an end in sight. For a little more information about this, I am a registered nurse and I did some research when this first started happening and the EPA has a website, epa.gov. There is a lot of information about human crematories. The most striking to me was that crematories put out dioxins, which are known cancer-causing agents and on the top 10 list of EPA's bad chemicals. Human crematories are right up there with tire burning plants and copper smelting plants with putting dioxins into the air. To say nothing of the heavy metals that are put into the air when bodies are being cremated. From a health perspective, heavy metals are very dangerous and one state is currently considering legislation to have fillings removed prior to cremation. You can imagine the debates going on over that one. That just sounds awful. This is not only a nuisance and a terribly unpleasant experience, it is also a serious threat to our health. For those reasons, I would encourage you to pass this ordinance. I am so grateful to the work of Bob Murphy for listening to us. Thank you very much. And Brian Nielsen for his hard work. I am so happy with the City of Lakewood. It gives me faith in the process that the process can work, that you can have an issue and bring it to the attention of your representatives, and with perseverance and patience and determination can see positive things happen. I'm so glad we didn't have to move or some other outcome. It makes me very happy. Thank you very much for listening.

Pamela Dechant - 5385 W. 8th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
My point is pretty well made here tonight. However, I would like to thank the City of Lakewood, especially Bob Murphy and Brian Neilsen and his lovely team for renewing my faith in the City of Lakewood. I have lived here for almost 29 years and am the mother of two toddlers. I can exhale now knowing that soon I will be able to look out my back window and not see black smoke and not have to leave for an entire afternoon to try to protect my children and my entire family that still lives on 8th Avenue after 50 years. Thank you, thank you very much for hearing us tonight.

Marilyn Aragon - 5525 W. 8th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Supports the passage of the ordinance, but did not wish to speak.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-25. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Councilwoman Koop stated she would like to applaud the citizens and neighborhood of Two Creeks for their patience and perseverance and pushing forward to get this done. I have seen the videos. I've heard the comments of what has been happening and I'm really glad that the City has worked with them like they have and I would like to applaud my fellow ward Councilor Bob Murphy for all his hard work. Thanks again for coming and speaking up.

Councilman Stevens thanked the neighborhood for being so diligent and being so patient. It has taken quite a while and I think you'll be rewarded tonight. Thank you to Councilor Bob Murphy who has stuck to this issue like a bulldog. I think I have only seen him real upset twice and this was one of those times. Thank you for your work.

Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 16 - ORDINANCE O-2002-26 - AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF SIX (6) QUIT CLAIM DEEDS FOR PARCELS OF PROPERTY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF COLFAX AVENUE BETWEEN INDIANA AVENUE AND COLE BOULEVARD ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-26. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin. Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nay. The motion carried.

ITEM 17 - GENERAL BUSINESS

A. ORDINANCE O-2002-28 DECLARING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ONE HORSE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES AND SERVICE AREA OF THE DISTRICT, AND GIVING IT THE CORPORATE NAME SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION AND FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Kristen Bear - White & Associates - Representative for Petitioners
The Petition for the organization of One Horse Business District was filed with the City. An amended Petition was subsequently filed which made some minor amendments to the service area of the District as well as requesting that the initial board of directors is elected pursuant to an election held under Title 1. We have published and mailed notification of tonight's public hearing to all property owners within the service area of the District. In addition, we have provided the City Clerk with various documents that depict the overall ownership in the service area as well as the legal boundaries of the District. Those documents do show that the Petition has been signed by 100% of the owners within the legal boundaries of the District as well as over 50% of the property owners owning 50% or greater of the total assessed valuation within the service area. At this point, I would welcome any questions you might have and I do have a map showing the service area as well as the legal boundaries of the District. Thank you.

Attorney Roger Noonan stated that the public hearing was just held and would be followed by only the first reading of the ordinance.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-28 on first reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin. Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nay. The motion carried.

B. RESOLUTION-2002-54 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY, ARVADA, GOLDEN, WESTMINSTER AND WHEAT RIDGE RELATING TO THE HOUSING AND TREATMENT OF JUVENILE REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Resolution 2002-54. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Councilman Murphy stated that we are not proposing group homes for juvenile sex offenders on some cul-de-sac in Green Mountain or in the Glens or any other residential neighborhood in Lakewood. That is, in fact, exactly what we are trying to prevent. Through the testimony and process, if this passes all those jurisdictions, Lakewood would add one facility for a maximum of 15 kids and that facility will be located in a commercial or industrial zone. Thank you.

City Manager Mike Rock stated that he appreciated that it has been a long meeting and there have been a lot of people at the podium. I will try to keep my remarks brief, but I wanted to give you an overview of this item. What the agenda item asks you to do is to authorize the City to enter into an intergovernmental agreement, and by doing so, it is the first step in a multi-step process that would involve a series of negotiations with other communities within Jefferson County, and work with our own Planning Commission, and ultimately with you, to revise various zoning regulations and other requirements to create a consistent approach to dealing with juvenile sex offenders throughout Jefferson County. The implementation of the actual changes in regulations themselves would come back to City Council after going through Planning Commission. This intergovernmental agreement has been negotiated clearly with the interest of Lakewood citizens in mind. What it is not, is any effort to place treatment facilities in residential zones, nor does facilities for any adults. I know there have been some anonymous flyers circulating around. My experience has been that anonymous flyers usually reflect both the character of the author and the quality of the information. What we are trying to do is deal with an issue that has been a long standing issue within Jefferson County and within our own municipalities, and that is the treatment of non-violent juvenile sex offenders. There is a process to deal with violent or dangerous juvenile sex offenders and that is an incarceration process, but there are a number of other sex offenders who have gotten into the system, who need treatment, who preferably need treatment in close proximity to their families, and what we're trying to do is come up with a program to deal with that uniformly between municipalities and the County. What you might recall, over the last 18 months or so, Jefferson County went through a series of efforts to locate, what I would refer to a supermax facility that would have housed in excess of 50 and closer to 100 juvenile sex offenders. They looked at a number of sights throughout the County and they are still evaluating how they can deal with this issue. On a short term basis, they are sending many of these individuals out of state, that is incredibly expensive and will soon reach its capacity limits and that will bring the issue back to each of our communities to deal with. When the County originally looked at the location of this one supermax facility, it looked at a number of locations throughout the County, including locations in Lakewood, including two locations adjacent to Bear Creek Lake Park, and other locations within the City of Lakewood. The goal in the intergovernmental agreement is to protect Lakewood citizens to provide a greater degree of control than exists today. To disburse the facilities throughout the County and to also ensure dispersion within our own community and to create a board, which I will discuss in more detail, which will be able to exercise a great deal of authority and control over the operation of those facilities, authority and control that we have not had previously. Arvada has already approved this intergovernmental agreement and again, this part of the process is the first step in a multi-step process. It allows us to continue the efforts to work out the details of the intergovernmental agreement and work out the local zoning issues. The purpose of the intergovernmental agreement is to create a consistent approach in reviewing and approving group living quarters, emphasize group living quarters, for juvenile sex offenders, limited to industrial and commercial zones. The IGA creates a whole series of requirements including minimum distance between group living quarters and other uses. It addresses state licensing standards and certificates of operations. It requires that a contract exist between that facility and Jefferson County Social Services. It includes a requirement that the facility have a security plan approved not only by the oversight board, but also by our local police department. It limits the total number of residents to 15 and limits those facilities to commercial and industrial zones. A comment was made earlier about planned unit developments. In those instances, where a planned unit development exists, and if it is large enough to include commercial and industrial zones, the facilities are limited exclusively to those zones and in no circumstances, could be placed in the residential portion of a planned unit development or in any other residential zone within the City. There is an entire section devoted to ensuring that none of the residents are violent or dangerous. It creates a Jefferson County Zoning Compliance Board which is charged with the oversight of the operations of these facilities, monitoring these facilities for compliance with State and local requirements, dispersion of the facilities. The seven-member board includes a representative from Lakewood and each of the other municipalities, plus two representatives from the County. One of the significant components of the intergovernmental agreement is that it requires that Jefferson County take the very first facility. It requires that each jurisdiction in the County have one facility before any jurisdiction has two and it also states that under no circumstances would any jurisdiction ever have more than two. Finally, it gives credit to any jurisdiction that has an existing treatment facility for juvenile sex offenders. Lakewood already has one such facility, therefore, under the terms of this agreement, there would be no consideration of another facility in Lakewood, until every other entity had one and secondly, there would never be more than one additional facility in Lakewood. The process is such that at the first stage, each of the municipalities consider and agree to enter into the intergovernmental agreement. The intergovernmental agreement is only effective if all the parties enter the agreement and that includes Jefferson County, Arvada, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge. If all the entities do not sign onto the agreement, then the agreement is not binding on any of the parties. After the initial action by the parties to sign the agreement, then there is a period in which each of the entities reviews and makes necessary adjustments to the various zoning requirements. That comes back to each City Council for action. It's only after all those steps are completed that the agreement is in effect.

Mayor Burkholder read the following comments on Councilman Elliott's behalf:
"To my constituents in attendance at Monday's City Council meeting or watching on Channel 8, I am sorry that I could not be with you this evening, but my family and I are on a long-planned vacation to Yellowstone. I would like for you and my fellow Council members to know, however, that I fully support the intergovernmental agreement with Jefferson County, Arvada, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, and Wheat Ridge, regarding the shared responsibilities of the housing and treatment of juvenile sex offenders. I am offended by a flyer that was passed around anonymously in my ward, that contained misinformation and scare tactics regarding a situation that does not exist. This agreement pertains only to non-violent sex offenders (children themselves), not adults who have committed sex crimes and certainly not pedophiles in the true sense of the word. The flyer also falsely scared my neighbors by indicating that sex offenders would be living in our neighborhoods. In fact, this agreement calls for these group living quarters to be only in commercial and industrial areas. This is a community-wide problem and this is a reasonable solution and I support it. I urge all Lakewood residents to freely question any information they receive that comes from an anonymous source. There is usually a reason why people don't want to sign their name and that is because the information they are disseminating is inaccurate and designed simply to inflame and scare. Signed, Ray Elliott"

Mayor Burkholder opened a public hearing on the matter.

Bonnie Ferguson - 1420 Holland Street - Lakewood, Colorado
In regards to some of the comments on the group living, I have a few concerns. One, is part of the regulation that is on the website, that they have 3500' from each facility, yet there is only 500' from any public/private school or day care or 500' from any adult entertainment center, or 100' from any residential zoned property, measured from the exterior wall of the group living quarters. That is a spit and a throw. Fifty feet on either side of my house, if it were to be placed in my neighborhood. You state that it goes in commercial and industrial, yet every arterial node within two blocks of either side: Colfax, Wadsworth, Kipling, is commercial or industrial. Who is going to supervise these sex offenders, 18 or 80, they are just as dangerous. Sex offenders is a violent crime in any capacity. One, I'm concerned that there is no special use permit placed on any of these facilities that need to be monitored by the City. I'm concerned with the schooling that these people will be doing and who is paying the cost. This needs to be placed in the public hand first before a resolution is written by you. The public should be aware of what is going on. None of us really knew about this until it came up on the website. One in any neighborhood, is one too many.

Dorothy Wisecarver - 8655 Meadowlark Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
I just found out about this, so I don't really know a great deal about it. I did notice that approval of the applications, adopted by each jurisdiction may be done administratively, use by right, or public hearing process. I certainly hope it would be a public hearing process and also where the Council would make these decisions and not done administratively. I think this is a more open process and a more fair process. I don't know at what point in this agreement this would be determined, but that is a question that I have. Another thing, I feel that it talks about commercial and industrial zoned districts only, but that pretty much limits these facilities to certain areas of Lakewood and completely eliminates others. I think there should be a fairness to where these are located. I think there should be some thought that these should not be in one neighborhood and should be distributed. Another problem that I have is that I feel it should go through a public hearing process. I think it would be more acceptable if people understood about how far these would be from their residential area, because 100' is not very far, and it says from any residential zoned property. That can be scary if people don't understand what you're talking about. 500' from schools and day care centers. I think a public process where it is open and you can explain all this. Also, it talks about the supervision of these houses through social services and how they will be licensed. Will these be private companies contracted to do this or how is that handled? Thank you.

Mike Mueller - 868 South Owens Court - Lakewood, Colorado
I have no idea what a non-violent sex offender is. A sex offender is a heinous violent terrible crime. You cannot say it is non-violent. These people are violent people. You cannot put them within schools. You can't put them next to neighborhoods. Is the next step in this intergovernmental agreement for adult sex offenders? Is that what we are gradually going to grow into? Why do we need to have an intergovernmental agreement? Why can't the City handle this by themselves and not be dictated to by a bunch of other governments? I ask that this be tabled until a public hearing is held. Thank you very much.

Madeline Nichols - 5800 W. 8th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing, but I worked in this field of abuse and neglect and I feel that maybe social services should be up there and not me. Juvenile sex offenders, I would not call it a heinous crime. Juvenile sex offenders have probably been sexually molested themselves and I think one of the big issues here is that people don't quite understand what sex abuse is all about and how it happens and why it happens and I can tell you if you don't treat juvenile sex offenders in an early age, you're going to have adult sex offenders. Like anybody else, I'm not real fond of having umpteen sex offenders in any one place. I think the idea of them being spread out and everyone taking some responsibility for these children is probably a good idea. How it is spread out should be really looked at and I would say that Lakewood only has one and our City Manager said we wouldn't get another one until one of the other areas get one and we would probably only get one more. Where that is put, I do agree with there being some sort of public hearing so people know what's coming, so people don't just say, this is happening in your neighborhood. I think we should be proactive about it. We got reactive with the crematory thing, I think we could be proactive about this. I think it's something that is part of our society and we need to do something about it somewhere. I don't think Lakewood should be sticking their head in the sand anymore than Wheat Ridge, Arvada, or any place else in Jefferson County. Juvenile sex offenders are not going to go away unless they are treated and I think we should think about that.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to approve Resolution 2002-54. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Councilman Murphy made a motion to amend the motion as follows: "No one of the five wards of the City of Lakewood shall house both of these proposed facilities." It was seconded by Councilwoman Wise.

Councilman Stevens stated that he would support the amendment. It does, in fact, help to ensure that these facilities are evenly distributed, that no one neighborhood has to bear the burden. It is my understanding that Lakewood already has one and it will be a while before we'll house another one. I will be supporting the amendment.

Councilman Booher stated he would be abstaining. Mayor Burkholder stated that he was not allowed to abstain. He must vote "yes" or "no."

City Attorney Roger Noonan stated that by Charter, you can not abstain from a vote. You either have to vote "yes" or "no" unless you have a conflict of interest, which he stated he was aware of, you cannot just abstain.

Councilman Booher asked Mr. Noonan what his options were and if he could leave for this vote.

Mr. Noonan stated that if he leaves for this vote, he would leave for the balance of it. If you are going to say you have no interest in this amendment, then you have no interest in the main motion.

Vote on the amendment: 9 Ayes. 1 Nay. (Booher). The motion carried.

Councilman Herbst stated that she serves on the State Juvenile Parole Board. I was appointed by the Governor of Colorado back in March and I deal with these offenders on a weekly basis. Numerous offenders. This is a problem that no one likes to have to deal with. Unfortunately, it is a problem and a very serious problem that is out there. These are our children that are coming from, not only Jefferson County, but Lakewood as well. I would like to respond to a few of the questions that were raised during public comment. This information that I am presenting, is coming from my limited parole board experience. I have researched this and it is part of my job to know this. It isn't City information, it is State of Colorado information. Ms. Wisecarver and Ms. Ferguson have asked about the supervision of these facilities. On July 1st, the State of Colorado enacted guidelines for Juvenile Sex Offenders, and this incorporates all of the credential requirements for every group home, residential facility, treatment facility, detention facility, and everything else in that span dealing specifically, with juvenile sex offenders. These guidelines have to be adhered to by every agency in the State of Colorado. They are implementing training programs on those guidelines and I will be attending one of those in the fall as part of my parole board responsibilities. A copy of the guidelines are available for anyone who asks. The guidelines go into very detailed descriptions on how these juveniles are processed into the system. They can either be on probation; they can be on parole; or they can be in detention. They each have a plan that they follow. Each juvenile is different and has a different supervision plan, depending on the extent of their crime. By approving this resolution, we are taking control as a local community, in determining where, how, when, what, and how many, rather than having the County come to us and dictate to us where they want to put it. We're talking about one home with 15 juveniles. It is easier to supervise 15 juveniles rather than 100 in a supermax facility, because those 100 juveniles would be treated the same way. In regards to Mr. Mueller's comments regarding non-violent sex offenders, there are different classifications for sex offenders. Many of the juvenile sex offenders have been sexually offended by adults. Without treatment, they have approximately 2 years and 9 months to get treatment, otherwise they are back out into the community with absolutely no supervision whatsoever. If they have not gone through specific treatment plans, the likelihood for them to re-offend is very high. With the treatment they will be receiving in these residential facilities, it's a 75% re-arrest rate within 5 years and that doesn't necessarily mean that they have re-offended on sexual offenses. So that is a pretty low statistic, once they've had treatment.

Councilwoman Wise stated that Mr. Mueller raised a question that bears clarification to the public with regard to the distinction between a juvenile registered sex offender and a sexually violent predator. Can we get that clarified? I am in agreement that sex crimes are violent in nature, but we are distinguishing between these two levels.

Mike Rock stated that it was the intent of the various local governments in trying to craft the intergovernmental agreement, that we specifically avoid any youth offenders who would be a threat to the community. We included specific language in the agreement which is really intended to be generic language until the standards were adopted. The Standards are brand new. Any individuals that would be a threat to the community would go to a lock-up. Terry Green could testify as to who these kids are and who they aren't. I think our effort here is to deal with a segment of the juvenile sex offenders, certainly not the full spectrum.

Terry Green, Director of Human Services for Jefferson County
Over 90% of the juvenile sex offenders in our custody have sexually offended within their own family. That is where the crime was actually committed. We make a recommendation to the court. That court then has to abide by the information that we give them and any additional information they want. Then they place an order where we place the child. Any kid that is dangerous goes to a Department of Youth Corrections facility. If the kid posses that kind of danger, the judge or magistrate is not going to let us place that kid in this type of a facility and we would not recommend it.

Mike Rock stated that the intergovernmental agreement is specifically written to prohibit it. So even if one of those two steps broke down, the intergovernmental agreement prohibits that. The Jefferson County Compliance Board, which would have oversight, would also have the authority to prohibit that. All of the implementation regulations have to be written after we go through this first state. However, that is the clear and unwavering commitment of all the parties.

Councilwoman Wise stated that Dorothy Wisecarver asked the pertinent question regarding the public hearing process. What oversight would the Council have to ensure that the public is involved in this. There is such a high degree of sensitivity and the magnitude of this is so huge, that the more we can educate and involve the public in it, the better we are served. I would like to have some assurance that the public hearing process would be adhered to.

Mike Rock stated that Section 2.1 of the Agreement discusses the process for reviewing and implementing a specific application and it provides for a local option because we didn't feel that any one entity should dictate to the other. So it provides for a local option to be decided by you whether that review process would be done administratively or through a public hearing process conducted by City Council or by Planning Commission. It really reserves all of that to you. Prior to any actual implementation of this Agreement, those regulations have to come back to you, including all changes in process and in zoning. The City Council decides which of the options they want. Recognizing there are five municipalities in the County, we didn't think any one should dictate to the other.

Councilwoman Kesselman stated that she would be supporting the proposal because she believes it is the best outcome that we can see. We have a problem in our society and in our community that people don't want to recognize. It's there. We're going to have to deal with it. Previously, the County was moving ahead on its own to try to identify a place to put a large facility. Frankly, I would rather be in the driver's seat about how that gets placed, when it gets placed, and how it happens. I think that the cooperation between the cities and the County in this is the best outcome we could possibly have and probably is best for the kids. It is more local. It is a place where kids in the community can be treated for these problems that exist. We can't stick our heads in the sand and say it doesn't exist. I will be supporting this.

Councilman Stevens asked who would be supervising the sex offenders and if there would be private companies contracted to do this.

Councilwoman Herbst stated that there are private companies that do contract with Social Services that provide the necessary treatment in these group homes and run them. The Standard that the State has adopted covers all of that including licensing, training, and hours of treatment. It is done through Social Services. The City is not going to get the contract. It will be awarded through Social Services. The supervision falls into the same guidelines. This is not a home. It is not a house with five bedrooms in it or five kids in a room. It's a facility. It's called a group home because that's the way it's treated, as if the kids were in a home so they can try to readjust to get back into the community. The word group home is kind of misleading. It isn't a home in any way shape or form. It is a facility and it will have treatment services, educational services, and job services.

Mike Rock stated that the component that is related to the IGA is that there is State oversight, County Social Service Oversight, and in addition, this IGA creates this Board and the 7-member board sets standards of operation for group living quarters and those standards of operation have to address safety, security, and community capability. There has to be a plan for each facility for community involvement, so that the neighborhood and the broader community gets information about what is happening in the facility. They have to set in place a standard to deal with complaints. There is a process the Board conducts for a security plan that is reviewed and approved by the local city police departments. They have procedures to issue, review, and suspend Certificates of Operation. So for a facility to operate, not only has to get all the State licenses and then enter into a contract with Social Services, but then this Board looks at them and decides whether or not they want them operating within Jefferson County. Without a Certificate of Operation, they cannot operate within Jefferson County. Then they set in place procedures for inspections on a scheduled and unscheduled basis. In some cases, State agencies or other agencies may not be quite as responsive as we want, this Board has the ability to conduct its own inspections and unannounced inspections. There is a huge amount of authority that vests in this Board on top of the other safeguards I mentioned.

Councilman Stevens stated that Mrs. Ferguson asked who is paying the cost, both currently and in the future. Who pays for this?

Mike Rock stated that ultimately all of us because the cost is paid by the taxpayers of Jefferson County, either by the taxes you pay to the Federal Government, the State Government, and to your local government. All of those costs. While there are different programs, all are paid by taxpayer dollars that are already going into that system. One of the intentions of this intergovernmental agreement is to help make sure that those costs to all the taxpayers do not escalate, because when juveniles are sent out of State, the costs are dramatically higher than in-state placement.

Councilman Stevens stated that a question that came from Mr. Mueller was what was next. Adult sex offenders?

Mike Rock stated that that is a leap of faith that defies logic. The discussion has never been about adult sex offenders and, in fact, Lakewood was a leader in dealing with concerns around sex offenders. We were the very first community to put in place a requirement that limited unsupervised adult sex offenders to one per household. I think there is a lot of emotion and no substance to that kind of suggestion. It has never been part of any discussion that we've had with the other entities and it has certainly not been part of any discussion we've had with you. I have a very clear understanding and guidance about your intentions around adult sex offenders.

Councilwoman Herbst stated that regarding the supervision issue, each of the juveniles are assigned a client manager. It's not all on the facility that they're in. They are tracked from start to finish by one person, their client manager. They follow up and are monitoring as well.

Councilwoman Saum stated that it is her understanding that the Arvada City Council passed this unanimously. She asked what the timetable is for the completion of the IGA.

Mike Rock stated that the other cities are following a similar process. They are doing an initial review with City Council to get broad guidance as to whether or not they are heading in the right direction and then it will go to their Planning Commissions. It is the intent that everyone will deal with it this fall at some point. We tried to be very careful and respectful in the intergovernmental agreement, not to set arbitrary deadlines because people are dealing with budgets and other issues. It was our intent that everyone finish it by this fall.

Councilwoman Saum stated that it was never the intent to try to keep it a secret. In any kind of a proposal, when you are in a drafting stage, it's best to put it together before you ever talk about it and go public with it.

Mike Rock stated that this has been on the City Council agenda cycle for three or four weeks. Plus, there was a very large article in the Rocky Mountain News, Thursday, July 18, 2002, regarding the issue. Mike Rock and a representative from the County are the only two people quoted in the article.

Councilwoman Koop stated that she did have several concerns about one ward being saddled with having both facilities in the same area. That has been addressed by the amendment. She thanked everyone for voting on the amendment. The 100' distance requirement for residential neighborhoods was brought up and the 500' from schools and preschools, and as a parent, that is a concern to me and I would like you to explain how you came up with those numbers.
Mike Rock stated that under Section 2.1, A through O, there are a variety of standards for the group living quarters and A through E addresses distance requirements. The effort on the part of all the parties involved was to strike a balance and come up with distance requirements, a degree of comfort that people have around this very emotional issue, but not make those distance requirements so onerous that the net effect is that you couldn't have any facilities within certain jurisdictions. When we looked at 500', I believe, three of the five jurisdictions no longer had any facilities in their community, because they didn't have much commercial or industrial zoning. This would mean that instead of Lakewood having a maximum of two facilities, we would have had a maximum of four. We worked backwards working with larger distance requirements and continually measured them in each community to make sure that every community could have facilities. We have a 3500' distance requirement between facilities. That is the very consistent idea that they should be distanced between themselves and another distance requirement not allowing them to put a facility on the border of another city, because obviously, all the cities share borders. We have other distance requirements, 500' from schools, adult businesses, etc. That is almost two football fields. That is a substantial distance. More importantly, the juveniles that are being placed will have gone through a careful screening process to ensure they are not a danger or threat to the community. We have had a facility in Lakewood, I believe, since 1989. It has operated just fine. This is not a case that we're putting a prison or adult sex offenders or any predators in the facility. As Mr. Green stated, most of the kids have been actually involved in activities in their own facilities that were initiated from adult to child and the children assume that is normal behavior and act inappropriately. The proof is in the fact that we've had a facility that has worked just fine. Our intent was to provide reasonable spacing, but not create spacing that was so onerous that Lakewood would end up with more of the facilities. One of the proposals that we successfully argued against was one that said facilities should be based proportionate to population. Since Lakewood is the largest city within Jefferson County, third largest within the Metro Area, it would have meant that we would have had more facilities and smaller communities like Wheat Ridge or Golden would have had fewer. We argued against that. We think the spacing is structured in such a way that provides for everyone's safety and still provides a practical solution.

Councilwoman Koop stated that the Agreement includes permitted use within the facility may include school facilities or compulsory education up to grade 12 and day treatment not to exceed a total capacity of 2.5 times the number of residents. She stated that meant there could be up to 37 juveniles there on any given day. Where would they come from and who are they?

Mike Rock stated there may be 37 during a certain period of time. Many or perhaps most of the kids go to public schools. They are already in that system. There are occasions where it make sense for the group living quarters to provide some on-site educational opportunities, either in terms of continuing education, education in life skills, or in some cases, some K-12 classes. I met today with the school superintendent to discuss that and they are in fact, providing those kind of classes within group living quarters now in various places in the County. If there are three facilities, say one in Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, and Golden, rather than having each facility build room for classroom space and rather than have JeffCo send teachers to deal with four kids in Wheat Ridge, and perhaps two kids in Lakewood, and three in Golden, the intent is to provide the option that perhaps one facility would provide a classroom that would be big enough to hold special classes from time to time. In those cases, closely supervised, the kids would come in on a bus or van, attend the class and then leave. It's simply to provide some flexibility in treatment because part of what we are trying to do is provide treatment and education for these kids. Their option is either to go into our public schools, or in some cases, to be educated on site.

Councilwoman Herbst stated that a lot of the kids that you would probably see coming into a facility like that are going to be kids that are on probation that have not been put into a detention facility. They haven't been adjudicated and they are required as part of their probation to go through specific classes. Not all facilities are run like a regular school. There are specific goals that are set for each class and they earn specific status. A lot of the kids are in McLain High School because the alternative school setting benefits the kids better. There are some in the public schools as well.

Councilwoman Koop stated that the Agreement says that the registered sex offender shall be treated as a juvenile registered sex offender as set forth in this agreement regardless if the person can also be defined something other than a juvenile registered sex offender. Could you clarify this for us?

Mike Rock stated that sometimes you have a kid that has acted inappropriately and has been involved in a graffiti offense or vandalism, or something else that put them in the judicial system. You could have someone who is classified as a juvenile sex offender, who also, if they were not a juvenile sex offender, might be in the judicial system anyhow for a different offense. Under no circumstances, would someone who is deemed to be violent or a threat to the community be placed in these facilities. It would not be a case, using an extreme case example, where someone commits a murder, they don't get into the facility. They are still judged under the same standards where they have to be deemed not a threat to the community at three levels, the County Social Services level, at the Judicial level, and the Oversight Board level. They have to meet all three of those tests before they can go into the system. In addition, we have the security plan that is approved by the police departments and that security plan also addresses those kind of requirements regarding what kind of kids would be in the facility.

Councilwoman Koop stated that if her home was within the 100' she would be nervous about it. She stated she appreciated the answer and felt a lot better about it.

Councilwoman Herbst stated that that could also be reversed. If a juvenile is put into the system for another offense. If they have any history, whether they've been found guilty, adjudicated of a sexual offense, that still stays on their file and they are still required to register as a sex offender, even if that is why they are not in that facility.

Councilwoman Martin asked what was considered non-violent. Are we talking about indecent touching, indecent exposure, those types of things?

Mike Rock stated that it is the inappropriate touching and it's often behavior learned at home, either through observation or through contact.

Vote on the main motion: 9 Ayes. 1 Nay. (Booher). The motion carried.

Mike Rock thanked City Council for their time, realizing it is a very emotional issue.

Mayor Burkholder thanked Councilwoman Herbst for her expertise in this issue.

Councilman Murphy thanked Mike Rock for his courage and leadership in being proactive on this issue with the County and the other jurisdictions.

C. RESOLUTION-2002-50 ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FEES FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Resolution 2002-50. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nay. The motion carried.

D. ORDINANCE O-2002-27 REPEALING AND REENACTING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL; THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, 2002 EDITION; AND THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2000 EDITION; AND THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, AND ESTABLISHING THE PENALTIES

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to withdraw Ordinance O-2002-27 pending a City Council study session to discuss the issue. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin. Vote: 10 Ayes. 0 Nay. The motion carried.

ITEM 16 - REPORTS

Councilwoman Wise stated that in January she was appointed by the Jefferson County Commissioners to the Jefferson County Community Corrections Board, representing Lakewood. This was the position that former Councilman Scat Scatterday held for a good many years. I was very pleased to be able to participate. I have 7:00 meetings at the Jefferson County Administration Building. I am learning a lot. August 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, I went to the Quarterly State Community Corrections Meeting in Montrose and I did learn a lot there. It is a very complicated area and it's very interesting.

Councilwoman Koop stated she attended the Grand Opening for a skateboard park, a brand new one at the Walker/Branch Park. It's a joint venture between the City of Lakewood and the City of Edgewater. Edgewater built it and paid for it. Lakewood will help with the upkeep. It's a wonderful facility. If you have any skateboarders in your family or friends, let them know about it. It's located around 17th & Harlan. It was very impressive.

Councilman Stevens stated that the Screening Committee would be meeting twice this week, beginning at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow and 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. If you are unable to attend, please let me know.

Councilman Murphy thanked his fellow councilors regarding the crematorium and the geographical distribution for the juvenile sex offender homes.

Councilwoman Kesselman thanked Mike Rock for his efforts in the juvenile sex offender issue. It has been a very difficult issue for all of us and we spent a lot of time looking at the issues and he certainly helped us get the information we needed to make sure we were doing the right thing. The outcome will hopefully be what the community needs and hopefully, we can move forward. I was privileged, in July, to attend the State and Local Government Program at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and found it incredibly helpful in looking at how one looks at problems like this. It was an excellent example of a good outcome from a good process. Thank you.

Councilwoman Herbst thanked Mr. Rock, Mr. Noonan, and Mr. Harris for taking the extra time with her regarding the intergovernmental agreement and listening to her concerns. She stated she had quite a few concerns and questions. She thanked the members of the Juvenile Parole Board and State Board Administrator Mr. Dwight Eisnot who helped her compile the information and the research that I used and the knowledge she received.

City Clerk Margy Greer stated that tomorrow is the Primary Election and she encouraged everyone to get out and vote.

ITEM 17 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Burkholder adjourned at the meeting at 10:35 p.m.

Submitted by

Margy Greer, City Clerk

	Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice © City of Lakewood, 480 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80226, 303-987-7000