ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER

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

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL
Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding

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

Absent: Tom Booher

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 - PROCLAMATION - RETIRING EMPLOYEE KATHIE BEARD

Mayor Burkholder invited Kathie Beard forward as Council members donned cowboy hats in expression of their well wishes for Ms. Beard, who was retiring and moving to Texas. Councilman Elliott read a proclamation in recognition of Ms. Beard's 24 years of conscientious and dedicated service to the City of Lakewood. Ms. Beard expressed her thanks and appreciation for the honor. Mayor Burkholder thanked her for being the person he and other Council members could depend on to assist citizens with concerns and complaints.

ITEM 5 - RECOGNITION - WINNERS OF 2002 MAYOR'S AWARDS

Mayor Burkholder explained the process for determining winners of the annual Mayor's awards. He invited award winners forward as each was recognized:

VOLUNTEER SERVICES AWARD
Neighborhood Watch Program Team
Dave Donar, Police Department
Doug Eller, Police Department
Bob Weiland, Police Department

SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Rose Watson, Community Resources

TEAM ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Certificate of Participation (COP) Team

Com Resources Finance Dept Info Technology Public Works
Kathy Hodgson Jacque Wedding Scott Wendy Shrader Dick Plastino
Kit Botkins Mike Connor Lori Kahn Ken Nyhoff
George Fivgas Karen Stickland Adrienne Holmes Jay Hutchison
Chris Radic Larry Dorr Dan Donnell Steve Melby
Suzonne Fowler Terri Kindsfather Tyler Theys
Mary Bevins Mary Barnard Mark Wieseler
Dave Kirchhoff Michelle Dunfee
Paul Battaglia Barbara Ruley
Randy Rudloff
Ross Williams Police Dept:
Rick Baldessari Bob Huestis
Doyle Smith Gail Spencer
Bill Jewell
Bruce Nelson
Craig Parzybok
Steve Carpenter
Kim Palmer
Debbie Hernandez
Mark Krick

SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARD
Rhonda Diaz, Municipal Court

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
John Anderson, Public Works

EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
Holly McLaughlin, Police Department

ITEM 6 - RECOGNITION - BOY SCOUT FUND RAISER FOR POLICE DOG VESTS

Police Chief Ron Burns introduced Boy Scout Cameron Jackson, who conducted a fundraising campaign last summer to purchase protective vests for each of Lakewood's six police dogs. Cameron's campaign was so successful that he raised over $10,000, enough to buy thirteen vests for canine members of the Lakewood, Golden, Arvada, Westminster and Northglenn Police Departments. Chief Burns presented Cameron with a Chief's Special Recognition Award. Cameron is a student at South Lakewood Elementary School.

ITEM 7 - PRESENTATION - NATOA AWARD TO KLTV

Mayor Burkholder stated that the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) recently awarded Lakewood's Channel 8, KLTV, 1st place in the nation for overall excellence in government programming. KLTV also took first place in the documentary category for the video "Alameda Avenue Redevelopment". Mayor Burkholder introduced Kit Lammers, Television Services Coordinator, and expressed his thanks and congratulations for these awards. Mr. Lammers thanked the Mayor and Council for their continued support of Channel 8, and expressed appreciation for all the staff that work to make KLTV successful.

ITEM 8 - RESOLUTION 2002-80 - APPOINTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-80, appointing Councilman Bob Murphy President of the City Council. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried. Councilwoman Wise thanked Councilman Murphy for his willingness to serve.

ITEM 9 - RESOLUTION 2002-81 - APPOINTING THE MAYOR PRO TEM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-81, appointing Councilwoman Jackie Herbst Mayor Pro Tem of the City Council. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Councilwoman Saum stated that during the first year of Councilwoman Herbst's term, trouble seemed to follow her. Councilwoman Saum commented that council members are expected to ratify the Mayor's selections for Council officers, but that the City Charter clearly states the Mayor Pro Tem is to be selected by the City Council. The writers of the Charter apparently felt that it's not a healthy political environment for a mayor to pick a second in command, she continued. Vote: 9 Ayes. 1 Nay (Saum). The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder thanked Councilwoman Herbst for her willingness to serve and briefly described the duties of the Mayor Pro Tem. He also expressed thanks to the outgoing officers, Councilwoman Wise and Councilman Elliott.

Mayor Burkholder recognized visiting Boy Scout Troops: Troop 78 (St. Jude's Catholic Church), Troop 748 (Christ on the Mountain Church), and Troop 130 (Golden).

ITEM 10 - RESOLUTION 2002-90 - APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE LAKEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Councilman Stevens made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-90, appointing Cathy Young as the Ward 4 member to the Board of Adjustment. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 11 - RESOLUTION 2002-91 - APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE LAKEWOOD COMMISSION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND HUMAN RELATIONS

Councilman Stevens made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-91, re-appointing Emelda Walker and Alicia Valiente, and appointing Richard Lopez, Yolanda Bezio, and Angela Bracero to the Commission on Cultural Diversity and Human Relations. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 12 - RESOLUTION 2002-92 - APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE LAKEWOOD SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION

Councilman Stevens made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-92, appointing Faye Hastings to the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 13 - RESOLUTION 2002-93 - RE-APPOINTING AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE LAKEWOOD HERITAGE, CULTURE AND THE ARTS COMMISSION

Councilman Stevens made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-93, re-appointing Donald Tallman and appointing Zachary Matyja and David Wiechman to the Lakewood Heritage, Culture and the Arts Commission. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried. Mayor Burkholder thanked Councilman Stevens and committee members for serving on the Council Screening Committee during the last year.

ITEM 14 - PUBLIC COMMENT

Dave Wolf, 18 Balsam, President of West Alameda Heights Homeowners Association, said he had heard that some councilpersons had been offended or angered because of citizens exercising their right to speak before Council. He expressed concern that some councilors may vote against an issue, regardless of its merit, in retaliation or punishment for the public exercising this right. He said he could understand it if a council member was offended or angered by a personal verbal attack, but this should be handled by simply ignoring the speaker. Listening to the public is one of the duties of a councilperson and councilors should be fully aware of that duty when they run for office, he commented. Mr. Wolf stated that neighborhood organization leaders have been told they should somehow control who speaks at Council meetings and what their members should say. Neighborhood organizations don't hold such power over their members, nor should they, he said. They do try to keep their neighbors informed about issues that may impact them and trust that everyone will react responsibly. Even if some people do act irresponsibly, that is no reason to remain silent about issues important to the neighborhood, he said, and urged councilors to listen to and respect the testimony they hear and evaluate that testimony based on its merit. He asked that councilors honor those responsible citizens who honor the City Council by exercising their right to let Council know what they think.

Johann Cohn, 1208 S. Brentwood, President of Lakewood Citizens for Open Space, stated that his organization had recently reviewed a list of projects that the City of Lakewood had presented to Great Outdoors Colorado for funding over the last few years. He said these were all good projects, but noted that in a 1995 application for funding for the O'Connell Community Center, now known as The Link, the neighborhood was described as being the worst area in Lakewood for crime and youth gang activity. The group hearing this description was surprised, he commented, as many had lived in the area for many years. Mr. Cohn said he knows that there is some relationship between recreational opportunities and delinquent behavior, but a certain level of recreation services does not deter a given amount of delinquency. His group is pleased the City obtained funds from GOCO for The Link, but please don't paint with too broad a brush - you don't need to slander the neighborhood to get recreation funds, he said.

Michael O'Beirne - 25 North Cody Court, referred to a letter he had written that was recently published in the Lakewood Sentinel. He expressed support for Mr. Wolf's statements regarding open democracy.

Walt Heidenfelder,13009 W. Ohio Avenue, referred to the Governor's recent campaign for re-election and said it was won on lies and misstatements, namely the claim that he had balanced the budget. The state budget is not in balance, it is more than a billion dollars short, he commented. Budget cuts announced after the election were cuts in services needed by citizens who can least afford them. State revenues are being spent primarily on roads no longer needed since the economy took a downturn, he said. Tax monies were returned to the rich last year and now the shortfall will be paid for by the poor. Mr. Heidenfelder stated that the TABOR amendment should be reversed so the state can do multi-year budgeting just like businesses and families. He suggested that if this were not addressed, Colorado citizens would continue to be stuck with inelastic, inequitable, impossible-to-manage TABOR restrictions.

Mayor Burkholder responded to comments about listening to citizen input and stated the City Council does allow time for citizens to speak. Communication is a high priority, evidenced by the Council's support for Channel 8, the Lakewood.org website, Looking at Lakewood, and regular meetings between councilors, homeowners associations, business groups.

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

ITEM 15 - RESOLUTION 2002-82 - REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FROM, AND CERTIFYING EXPENDITURES TO, THE JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD JOINT VENTURE WITH THE GOLD CROWN FOUNDATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FIELD HOUSE AT ALL STAR PARK

ITEM 16 - RESOLUTION 2002-83 - AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO FUND THE UNION BOULEVARD PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

ITEM 17 - RESOLUTION 2002-84 - SUPPORTING A GRANT APPLICATION TO JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN SPACE REQUESTING FUNDING FOR A SECOND PHASE OF IMPROVEMENTS AT GARY R. MCDONNELL PARK

ITEM 18 - RESOLUTION 2002-85 - SUPPORTING A GRANT APPLICATION TO JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN SPACE FOR FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT A SKATE FEATURE AT THE LAKEWOOD LINK RECREATION CENTER

ITEM 19 - RESOLUTION 2002-86 - FINDING A PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH COLORADO REVISED STATUTES SECTION 31-12-107(1)

ITEM 20 - RESOLUTION 2002-87 AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUND CONTRACT

ITEM 21 - RESOLUTION 2002-88 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR BID #2331, LAKEWOOD HERITAGE CENTER VISITOR CENTER

ITEM 22 - RESOLUTION 2002-89 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT MOWERS

ITEM 23 - RESOLUTION 2002-94 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC FINANCE AGREEMENT WITH GOLDBERG PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, INC. RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE

ITEM 24 - RESOLUTION 2002-95 - AUTHORIZING A RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AND RICOCHET NETWORKS, INC., TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF WIRELESS INTERNET EQUIPMENT WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OWNED BY THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

ITEM 25 - ORDINANCE O-2002-43 - DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ACQUIRE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNION BOULEVARD BETWEEN WEST 6TH AVENUE AND WEST 4TH AVENUE FOR THE UNION BOULEVARD PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE INSTRUMENTS, AND CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS

ITEM 26 - ORDINANCE O-2002-44 - AMENDING SECTIONS 1.04.010 AND 1.16.050 OF TITLE 1 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEM 27 - ORDINANCE O-2002-45 - AMENDING SECTION 2.20.155 OF TITLE 2 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL

ITEM 28 - ORDINANCE O-2002-46 AMENDING SECTIONS 9.10.030 AND 9.60.010 AND ADDING SECTIONS 9.41.075, 9.60.015, AND 9.64.030 OF TITLE 9 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY

ITEM 29 - ORDINANCE O-2002-47 - ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY GOVERNING THE SAFETY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 10.54.080, 10.60.100, 10.60.120, AND 10.63.010 OF TITLE 10 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

ITEM 30 - ORDINANCE O-2002-48 - AUTHORIZING A NON-EXCLUSIVE WATER LINE EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF CITY OWNED BELMAR PARK LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

ITEM 31 - APPROVING OF MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Regular City Council Meeting October 28, 2002
Special City Council Meeting November 4, 2002

ITEM 32 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt
Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting July 25, 2002
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt
Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting September 12, 2002
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt
Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting September 26, 2002
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt
Beverage and Arcade Licensing Authority
Meeting October 10, 2002
Lakewood Senior Citizens Advisory
Commission Meeting August 14, 2002
Lakewood Senior Citizens Advisory
Commission Meeting September 11, 2002

Public Comment:

The following persons addressed the City Council regarding Item 21, R-2002-88:

Barb Phillips, 900 S. Butler Way, commented that she is Secretary/Treasurer of the Belmar Civic Association and a member of Citizens for Open Space. We need to stop building structures in Belmar Park and stop creating venues that disturb the wildlife in Belmar Park, she said, and spend grant monies purchasing open space and preserving the pristine nature of Belmar Park.

Lorna Fox, 1133 S. Eaton St., commented that she is also a member of Lakewood Citizens for Open Space, a group dedicated to preserving Belmar Park as a passive open space park. Before the Council approves yet another building to be added to Belmar Park, she said, please stop and think about what you're doing. The citizens who originally petitioned the City to acquire land for Belmar Park never envisioned the area as a parking lot for old buildings that would replicate Colfax Avenue. A small museum area was always envisioned, she continued, but there was never a citizen vision for the type of facility now planned. Ms. Fox commented that if the City is so enamored of Colfax Avenue, then perhaps the City should improve Colfax Ave itself and preserve buildings of historic value on-site, rather than placing replicas and so-called representative buildings in the park. The open space and natural beauty of the park cannot be restored once it is filled up with buildings, she said. Belmar Park is the only park in the City that has open space and wildlife remaining even though strip malls, housing, bus terminals, businesses and government houses increasingly surround it. Any additional buildings in Belmar Park will detract from the open space beauty of the park, she concluded, and asked the City Council to reconsider construction of The Visitors Center.

Johann Cohn, 1208 S. Brentwood St., stated that this is not a discussion about culture, rather it is a discussion about the use of parkland. He expressed opposition against what the Heritage Culture and the Arts Commission envisions for Belmar Park and what is now called the Heritage Center. Mr. Cohn commented that the proposed building for the Visitors Center is not attractive - not everyone appreciates the décor of the 1950s. He stated that he understands there will be money lost if the project is abandoned now, but assumes that much of the money can be returned and/or reallocated for other beneficial projects. Mr. Cohn said he disagrees with those who believe that Lakewood has enough open space and even if the money is not used to purchase more land for Belmar Park, there must be other opportunities to purchase park space within Lakewood neighborhoods.

Carmen Cohn, 1208 S. Brentwood St., said she also represents Lakewood Citizens for Open Space and stated its opposition to the proposed Visitors Center. She referred to the tractor pull activity planned for future City events and commented that the last time this activity was offered, it destroyed a large part of Belmar Park. Given the drought conditions in Colorado, there's little chance the area will grow back, so how can anyone in the City consider holding this activity again, she asked. She handed pictures of the resulting environmental damage to the City Clerk and asked councilors to review them. Ms. Cohn said the Visitors Center would contribute to the overuse of Belmar Park and create even more environmental damage. She stated that every previous plan for the park opposed a visitors center and was developed following a lot of citizen participation. We feel that citizens still want open space, rather than more buildings in the park, she said, and urged the Council to defeat the resolution accepting the bid for construction of the Visitors Center.

Joan Howard, 7268 W. Cedar Cir., said she is on the Lakewood Historical Society Board and the Heritage, Culture and the Arts Commission for landmarks. She said she is very enthused and supportive of a Visitors Center because the City needs a museum display area for all the wonderful treasures that people have donated to the City and a place to present the history of Lakewood.

Donald Tallman, 960 S. Coors Dr., said he is the past chair of the Heritage, Culture and Arts Commission and has just been reappointed. He named other members of the commission present at tonight's Council meeting and said the commission is very excited about the Visitors Center. He commented that the Visitors Center is one key element in the overall master plan adopted in 1996 and will serve as the interpretive hub for the Heritage Center. Funding for the Visitors Center has come from the Gates Family Foundation, other foundations and many other private sources, both individuals and businesses, and is eagerly anticipated by these and numerous community groups. The commission applauds the support of the City Council and Mayor throughout this process, he said. If the resolution is approved, there should be a groundbreaking in December 2002 and the Visitors Center should open to the public in October 2003. Mr. Tallman then read an excerpt from a letter from Geoffrey Wodell, co-chair, SCFD Jefferson County Tier III Council, in support of the Visitor Center project. Mr. Wodell's letter emphasized that Lakewood is on the front edge of museum development in this country and that very few museums are dedicated to telling the history of the 20th century.

Further Public Comment:
Walt Heidenfelder, 13009 W. Ohio Ave., addressed the Council regarding Item 24, a resolution authorizing a right-of-way use agreement with Ricochet Networks, and said he assumes this is primarily for the use of the Police Department. He asked why this item was not included in the $5.5 million "upgrade" that was considered a couple of months ago and commented that budgets are very tight, so how did we come up with the money for this?

Allison Watson, 177 S. Downing St., said she represents Ricochet Network, and wanted to clarify that Item 24 has nothing to do with budgeting issues as far as the Police Department is concerned. Ricochet Network is donating 121 modems and subscriptions free-of-charge to the City because Ricochet Network would like to be known as the public safety provider, she said. It is completely up to the City to use or not use Ricochet, she continued, and stated that 75% of the modems are to be used for public safety purposes and the other 25% may be used for any purpose the City wishes.

Councilman Stevens asked Mayor's and City Manager's Office Director Joni Inman to speak to the Council about Ricochet Network. Ms. Inman explained that several years ago, Metrocom entered into a contract with the City to put relay boxes on City light poles and provided a wireless internet service for those boxes. Metrocom went into bankruptcy and Ricochet has since purchased the company. Ricochet came to the City proposing to renew the original agreement and offering to donate equipment to the Police Department, she stated. The resolution before the Council would allow Ricochet to use public rights-of-way for further installation of this equipment. Property Manager Mike Connor further explained that the donation of 121 modems and subscriptions is compensation to the City for the agreement. Ms. Inman stated that the modems, once installed on light poles, will allow for wireless laptops in police vehicles and give agents the ability to transmit reports and other information over the internet without being connected to a land line. Councilman Elliott further clarified the advantages of this service to the Police Department, and commented that Metrocom never really finished the system. He reiterated that there would be no cost to the City.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to approve the Council minutes; 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 date 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 Acting City Clerk. The motion was seconded by Councilman Elliott.

Councilwoman Kesselman asked for clarification on Item 18 regarding her understanding that no general fund dollars will be used for the skate feature. This was confirmed by other councilors.

Councilwoman Saum requested that Item 21, Resolution R-2002-8, be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered later in the meeting.

Mayor Burkholder called for a vote on the Consent Agenda items, excluding Item 21, which will be considered after all other matters on the agenda. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 33 - ORDINANCE O-2002-41 - TO VACATE A PORTION OF ARBUTUS DRIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 13300 WEST SIXTH AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Public Comment: None.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-41 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 34 - ORDINANCE O-2002-42 - AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 17-2-2(106), 17-2-2(107), 17-2-2(123), 17-2-2(164), 17-13-3(4)(g), AND ARTICLE 17-16 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF DUPLEX, DWELLING UNIT, FAMILY, HOUSEHOLD, HOME OCCUPATIONS AND AMORTIZATION

City Manager Mike Rock, explained that this ordinance resulted from a series of discussions conducted recently by the City Council regarding the definition of "household". The current household definition has been in place since 1981 and is based on habitable rooms. In the area surrounding Colorado Christian University (CCU), an individual recently bought and improved a number of properties and made them available for rental to CCU students. Neighborhood representatives brought this matter to the attention of the City. The City conducted an investigation and determined that this use met the requirements of the current ordinance. The City also met several times with the neighborhood and discussed alternative courses of action, including a review and revision of the current ordinance. The City also suggested a meeting between the neighborhood and the university, but neighborhood representatives thought that was not a good idea. The City and CCU entered into a voluntary agreement to limit the number of parking uses within the neighborhood and to limit the number of individuals in the rental units during the interim period until an ordinance revision could be considered. To date there have not been significant problems in the neighborhood over the rental units other than the emotions and feelings over this situation. Mr. Rock continued, saying that during the period August-November, the Lakewood Police Department received slightly over 200 calls for service, which is not unusual, and only a couple of those were related to the rental units - one was a first aid call, one regarded threatening phone calls and one was a music call.

Mr. Rock addressed issues regarding consistency in interpretation of the City's zoning ordinance. The City has been very consistent in its enforcement and interpretation of the ordinance since 1981. A 1995 memo from one of the City's attorneys issued an opinion that occupation of houses by students in the neighborhood was not in violation of the current ordinance. There have been no legal challenges to this ordinance, nor have we received any communication or correspondence from any attorneys regarding this issue, he said. There have been questions about whether the City could, would, or should enforce any covenants in the neighborhood. Cities don't enforce covenants; these are private agreements between neighbors. He referred to correspondence from the university that was interpreted by some as saying that these uses were dormitories. In fact, that correspondence included a definition for dormitory and then explained why "theme" houses are different from dormitories.

Mr. Rock stated that it is important to consider the proposed ordinance revision in the context of all the zoning codes. The Council took the approach that any ordinance revision needs to be addressed on a citywide basis. It is not appropriate to enact single-purpose legislation and certainly not to target an individual investor or institution, he continued, so the Council has taken the approach to consider action that would be appropriate citywide. The issues discussed included the differences that occur when houses are occupied by owners vs. renters, such as cars, transportation, noise and number of people. The primary change proposed by this ordinance tonight relates to the number of unrelated people in a household. The ordinance would change the current formula, which is based on number of persons per habitable rooms, to a new formula based on number of persons per square footage. The ordinance includes an amortization period, a period of time for the change to be implemented. Mr. Rock recommended that the amortization period be no less than three years. A shorter period would subject the taxpayers of Lakewood to unnecessary financial exposure, he commented.

Mr. Rock addressed the issue of dormitories, saying that the term was included for reference purposes in this section of the current ordinance in order to provide examples of short-term uses, along with motels and bed and breakfast establishments. Dormitories function differently than bed & breakfasts, he said, and there will be a discussion of school uses during the next Council study session regarding how dormitories fit in those uses. For purposes of tonight's discussion and this section of the ordinance, dormitories did not seem to have any similarity to motels and bed & breakfast establishments. The end of that sentence was for illustrative purposes only.

Mr. Rock stated that the major challenge the City faces when considering any ordinance change is the issue of how to enforce the change. In this case, how do we enforce a limitation on the number of individuals who can rent and share a household. Most ordinances are enforced first by voluntary compliance and this is made easier by use of square footage rather than habitable rooms because the City can rely on County Assessor's records. The City does not have right of entry and cannot require anyone to let us in a house to determine who lives there. Even if we had voluntary access to a house, people don't carry birth certificates showing relationships to others in the house. He concluded by saying that the changes proposed by this ordinance are appropriate, easy to understand and comply with, but our primary efforts will remain that of educational, relying on voluntary compliance. He reiterated that next Monday night, the Council would consider school uses during its study session.

Development Review & Enforcement Manager Vince Harris, discussed the details of the proposed ordinance. He explained that this is a citywide zoning issue and the changes, if approved, will apply to all neighborhoods in the City, specifically to single family homes and duplexes. The current Zoning Ordinance defines "household" as being a family of related persons, or unrelated individuals at a ratio of one person per habitable room. The average number of habitable rooms in Lakewood households is ten, so with the current definition, ten unrelated individuals are allowed per household. Mr. Harris explained that at an earlier study session, the Council directed staff to bring forward a revision to the Zoning Ordinance that included a cap of 5 unrelated persons per household and a three-year amortization period, or a "grandfather" type of period to allow individuals currently relying on the existing definition regarding unrelated individuals to use and rent their homes for up to the next three years.

Mr. Harris stated that the proposed revision to definitions would apply only to single family homes and duplex units, not multi-family units such as apartments, condos, and town homes. For those applications, the existing definition would continue, which is one unrelated person per habitable room. The proposed ordinance being considered tonight includes new definitions for family: an individual living alone, any number of individuals who are related by blood, marriage or legal adoption, including foster children, or any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, up to a maximum of one person per 400 gross square feet in the dwelling, including basements, excluding attached or detached garages, and not to exceed 5 unrelated individuals per dwelling unit. Every dwelling unit may have up to 3 unrelated people, regardless of the size of the house. Not more than two unrelated persons and their related children and/or parents would be allowed in a single-family home or duplex unit.

Mr. Harris commented that questions have come up regarding the reference to dormitory in the criteria used to evaluate a household per the current definition of household. Dormitories are not short-term in the same way that motels and bed & breakfasts are short-term. Staff has evaluated concerns raised by the neighborhood and has concluded that the term dormitory should be removed from the criteria used to evaluate a household. He commented that leaving the term in the criteria would continue to create confusion.

Regarding home occupations, Mr. Harris stated that the existing Zoning Ordinance allows the rental of rooms to up to two individuals per single family home. The proposal before the Council tonight clarifies that this type of rental would only be permitted if a family resided in the house and that that same family also owned the house.

Public Comment:

Carl Seese, 15 S. Dover St., expressed disagreement with the City Attorney's opinion regarding the dormitory issue and told Council members they should have the guts to vote independently of that opinion. The definition contained in the City Code is written in plain English, he said. No interpretation is needed to understand what it means. The Council is now planning to rewrite the code in legal language so we commoners cannot easily understand what it means. Mr. Seese said he didn't know whom to blame for not enforcing the dormitory code in the City and doubted the Council was entirely blameless. The City Attorney and the Planning Commission share some responsibility, he concluded

Jeri Coffey, 45 S. Cody St., quoted Mr. Rock as saying the word "dormitory" has no significance and that's why it should be removed from the ordinance. She said that when citizens came to the City earlier this year, they wanted dormitories out of the neighborhood, and now they're hearing a proposal to take dormitories out of the ordinance. She referred to a 1995 Denver Post article about the Fair Housing Act, entitled "Ruling Alters Local Zoning", regarding a ruling by the Supreme Court that cities may not use zoning laws to keep out group homes for people who are considered disabled under federal law. The article concludes that the ruling invalidates local ordinances that bar five or more unrelated people from living together in a neighborhood of single family homes, but does not open the road for group homes that, for example, have college students. Ms. Coffey said the Fair Housing Act has gotten mixed up with a very simple issue. The second problem she sees with the proposed ordinance is that the 400 square feet measure and cap of five people does not make a measurable difference. The number of unrelated people allowed between small houses and large houses in Lakewood does not change, because basements are included and this can make houses appear larger. She asked the Council not to include basements in the square footage formula and raised the issue of fire safety standards in basements. She asked the Mayor and Council to listen to the citizens of Lakewood and hear their voices.

Dorothy Wisecarver, 8655 Meadowlark Dr., said the proposed ordinance will address a citywide problem, that of too many unrelated individuals occupying single-family dwellings, which creates a zone change for neighborhoods without having to go through a rezoning and public hearing process. She said she found out first hand how widespread this problem was when she passed out flyers concerning these issues in Wards 1, 2, 3 & 5, particularly in Ward 3. Most people she talked to had an example in their area of a house where problems were created as a result of the ordinance currently in effect. She asked the Council to amend the proposed ordinance to allow one individual per 500 square feet rather than one per 400 square feet. Otherwise, every modest-sized house in Lakewood can accommodate five unrelated individuals, the same as the maximum allowed in any size house per the revision before the Council. She also asked that unfinished basements not be considered as part of the square footage. If basements are included, they should meet City Code and fire safety standards so that occupants can quickly exit. Ms. Wisecarver also asked that the word "dormitory" remain in the ordinance. Neighborhoods do not want to face a future ruling by the City that because the word "dormitory" is not in the ordinance, it is therefore an allowable use in single-family zoning. The word "dormitory" should remain in the ordinance as an example of an illegal use in single-family zoning. Lakewood's reputation as being one of the most desirable cities in the state to live in will be short-lived if the City continues to allow single-family residential areas to be used for boarding houses and dormitories by investors who do not invest in being part of the neighborhood. Lakewood's neighborhoods are just as important as its commercial development. If we want Lakewood to continue to be a desirable place to live and raise our families, we need laws that protect neighborhoods, not exploit them.

Bob Wright, 8580 W. 1st Ave., said he has lived at this address for nearly 48 years and he loves Lakewood and would do almost anything to discourage the degrading of any neighborhood. He said he hopes that when council members vote, they take into consideration that this could happen to them in their neighborhoods.

Susan McConnell, 895 Benton, said she is the current co-chair of the Board of the Two Creeks Neighborhood Organization, which supports in general the proposed ordinance, but urges the Council to consider one unrelated person per 500 square foot instead of the 400 foot standard in the proposal.

Samuel Ventola, 2435 S. Monroe, said he is an attorney with Rothgerber, Johnson and Lyons, a firm that specializes in representing religious organizations in regards to land use issues. He said he had been asked by Colorado Christian University to say a few words to the Council about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and explained that the biggest misconception about the act among city legislators is that it merely prohibits treating religious institutions and religious uses differently from others. Rather, the act creates special protection for religious exercise that does not exist elsewhere, he said. The act says that no substantial government burden on religious exercise will be permitted as to a religious use, regardless of whether it results from a law of general applicability. The only exception to that is if the regulation is necessary to further compelling governmental interests, he continued. General concern about traffic and noise unrelated to any specific showing of life and limb being in peril is not sufficient to constitute a substantial burden. "Substantial burden" may not be created if, for example, the occupation limitation is reasonable and allows students to continue to find housing in the neighborhood of a university. If the occupation limitation were so restrictive as to effectively exclude students and therefore prevent them from being located near their university and thus receiving a religious education, that could very well violate the act.

Robert Baker, 50 S. Cody St., said he is the current president of the Mid-Lakewood Civic Association and commented that the inherent nature of a group of unrelated persons makes it difficult or impossible to meet the criteria of "living together as a single housekeeping unit". In most cases, the challenge to meet the criteria becomes even greater if the number of unrelated persons is larger than smaller. This is true because the requirement is that such a group is living in a single-family home with a "concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency". What circumstances can you think of where a group of unrelated people get together and truly decide they are going to function and act as a single family would, sharing bills and chores among other relinquishments of their autonomy, he asked. Examples of what would be disallowed in the proposed ordinance are good and appropriate: bed & breakfasts, motels, hotels, but the proposal also eliminates the example of a dormitory. The very nature of dormitories is that of transient living arrangements and does not fit a concept of living as a single-family unit. Therefore, dormitory is a particularly appropriate example of an arrangement for living that should be illegal under the definition of single-family household. He gave an example of the house across from him, which houses CCU students, saying that the City contends these students are living together "as a single housekeeping unit with a family like structure and a sense of permanency". It appears, however, that two of the students have already packed up and moved out and in the past few days, no one has been seen at the house. Could it be that these students have gone home to their respective and separate families for Thanksgiving, he asked. Does a single family household typically leave its home in the hands of a property manager, which in this case is CCU, and go separate and individual ways at holidays? Or, does this sound like a dorm to you? Even if you don't want to call this living arrangement a dorm, it certainly fails the test of functioning as a family unit under the current and proposed ordinance, he concluded.

Rocky Germano, 950 Wadsworth, said he is currently the Chairman of the Board of the Jefferson County Association of Realtors. The Board recommends the City adopt regulations on the number of unrelated persons who can inhabit a home in a single-family residential neighborhood. The Board is concerned that the current limitation may be exploited as to alter the character of single-family neighborhoods. The expectation of homeowners in single-family neighborhoods is that a family or unrelated people living as a family unit will live in the area. Current law limiting the number of unrelated persons to the number of habitable rooms opens the door to large numbers of people living in a single-family residential zone. Adopting a clear limit will protect the character of the single-family neighborhoods throughout Lakewood and protect the investment residents have made in their homes, he continued. The Board voted to support limiting the number of unrelated persons living together in a single housekeeping unit to a maximum of one person per 500 gross square feet in the dwelling unit, excluding attached or detached garages, not to exceed five individuals per dwelling unit. We also ask that you not delete reference to dormitories in the definition of living together in a single housekeeping unit. Deleting this reference to "dormitory" from the ordinance and leaving the other language intact implies the City considers dormitories to have the attributes referred to in the current ordinance - family-like structure, shared responsibility with the household, functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency. He concluded by urging the Council to maintain the definition that is found in the current law, to take steps to protect the character of single-family residential neighborhoods and to protect the investment that owner-occupants and investors have made in Lakewood residential properties.

Robert Aldredge, 902 Wadsworth, said he is a real estate broker with an office in Lakewood that specializes in residential property management and owns a few duplex rental properties in Lakewood. He said he's on the front line every day dealing with problems and complaints from neighbors regarding multiple unrelated persons living in single-family homes. He questioned the definition of single-family home, saying that in the industry they refer to attached single-family homes and detached single-family homes and added that the City didn't address the issue of town homes and condominiums. He expressed concern that this will be a step in the direction of destroying the zoning the City has in place. He said he believes that R1 and R2 zones indicate single-family and that 4 or 5 unrelated persons, be they students, transient workers, or Hell's Angels, do not constitute a family. The City has zoned specific properties in areas for uses such as hotels, motels, bed and breakfast establishments with dormitory style living and these should not be included in single-family residential areas. He commented that Wheat Ridge has a limit of three unrelated persons per single family property and that seems to be working just fine and that he strongly supports the idea of raising the formula to 500 square feet per person and leaving the example of dormitories in the definition of an illegal use in the single-family household section.

Robert Johnson, 115 Estes St., said that over the past six months he's spoken to the Council several times about the proposed new ordinance and has met with some councilors on an individual basis. He thanked the Council for its time and attention during those meetings. He asked Council to vote for the formula of allowing one unrelated person per 500 square feet of living space and to leave the word "dormitory" as an illegal use in the ordinance. This past summer, acting as president of the Mid-Lakewood Civic Association, he attended a meeting that included Councilman Stevens where he told him that several homeowners were wondering if Council was considering using urban renewal to allow CCU to expand into the Meadowlark neighborhood. Mr. Stevens seemed surprised by the question, Mr. Johnson said, and he was assured that this was not the case. Mr. Johnson said he believed Mr. Stevens, but was concerned about future Council decision-makers. It is within the authority of the City Council to declare an area blighted and only 6 people are needed for a majority. He said the City Council could do a lot to protect its neighborhoods tonight by passing the new ordinance, using 500 square feet as basis for the formula.

Munsey Ayers, 950 17th St., said he was with the law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti and wanted to speak on behalf of Colorado Christian University and its friends and benefactors. He expressed thanks to City staff for doing a very nice job of synthesizing a lot of input from various folks with various points of view and for the very fair process. He said the proposed ordinance/amendment is a very fair and reasonable compromise that properly balances the various interest groups' concerns. This is an amendment to the ordinance that to some extent will gore everyone's ox, but it won't slay anyone's ox, and for that reason, CCU supports the ordinance as it is proposed tonight in its current form with some key elements that are very important to that support from CCU's point of view: the minimum of three and maximum of five unrelated occupants, performance standards based on 400 square feet per occupant, and a minimum three-year amortization period. He stated that the three-year period is the minimum reasonable period to enable a property owner to recoup his investment in a rental property, particularly investments that are made in reliance on the current ordinance to do things like add improvements in the basement for fire safety and other matters. CCU also supports the change that staff has proposed with respect to eliminating the reference to dormitories in this section of the ordinance, which serves no purpose other than to create confusion. CCU supports the ordinance in this form because the various elements provide protection for the property owners and will help the City avoid potential legal problems resulting from a more stringent ordinance. Mr. Ayers said he assumes this is an ordinance of general applicability and that CCU will not be targeted for selective enforcement. CCU supports this even though its preferred solution was for a five-year amortization period and a maximum of six occupants.

Tom Gardner, 9100 W. 4th Ave., referred to a chart prepared by the Planning Department comparing the number of unrelated individuals allowed in a single family dwelling based on the existing standard and the two proposed standards being discussed - one person/400 gross square feet and one person/500 gross square feet. He explained that he reviewed property records for one square mile in Lakewood, R69 T4 S10, an area from Carr to Kipling and 6th Avenue to Alameda. There are 1153 properties in this area, of which 973 are residential properties. Of the 973 properties, 7 fit in the first category of a 1-bedroom dwelling of 500 square feet, 23 are 2-bedroom dwellings of 650 square feet, 19 are 3-bedroom dwellings of 1100 square feet, 82 are 3-bedroom dwellings of 1400 square feet, 842 are 4-bedroom dwellings of 1800 square feet and above, of which 808 or 83.04% of all the properties are 4-bedroom dwellings of over 2000 square feet in size, counting basements. This 2000 square foot size dwelling is probably indicative of most of Lakewood and would be allowed the maximum of five unrelated individuals. Mr. Gardner commented that he's heard the City is concerned about undue liability, but if the City does something that is not in the public's interest it needs to be corrected. He understands that enforcement may be difficult on this, but it would at least let future investors know what is allowed so if they go against it, the City won't have another liability issue. He said he doesn't understand comments about confusion on the dormitory issue as it seems very clear to him what is a dormitory. He expressed confusion over why it's being taken out.

Mary Lou Akers, 8702 Meadowlark Dr., commented that she lives on Meadowlark "Speedway" and expressed thanks to the Lakewood Traffic Engineering Division for providing her neighborhood with two days entertainment when speed monitors were installed on her street. Everyone slowed down at seeing the monitors, and some speeders who weren't paying attention slowed down to 47 mph. Speeds went back to usual the following day. This relates to the dorm situation in that during the past year, traffic has increased twofold in the area with some speeds rivaling those of 6th Avenue, she said. Relief will not come in the form of 6-8 young people per house, all with cars, moving into the area. She encouraged the Council to consider each viewpoint expressed tonight as representing hundreds of others who feel similarly, but who are unable to attend. She commented on feedback she's received from some residents saying they shouldn't have to go to a City Council meeting since they elected the Council members to act in their best interests. She said she would accept one person per 500 square feet excluding unfinished basements and a two to three-year compliance period. She asked the Council to retain the word "dormitory" in the ordinance. She concluded with remarks about how she and her neighbors care about their neighborhood as much as Council members care about their neighborhoods and expressed concern about the many strangers filtering through her area on a daily basis.

Howard Hertzberg, 8514 W. Center Ave., said he's lived at this address for 20 years and that he likes Lakewood, especially the neighborhood aspect of the community. He asked how councilors would feel if they had lived in a place for 20 years or were planning to move into an area and live there for an extended period of time, put a lot of time and energy into keeping up the home and yard, only to find that anyone can move next door who has no incentive to keep up their house and yard. He asked councilors how they would feel if their next-door neighbors told them they were selling their houses to someone who was going to turn it into a dorm. The Council is spending a lot of money on a lot of worthy projects to build Lakewood up, he said. This proposed ordinance doesn't just relate to properties near CCU. It relates to anyone who wants to buy a home and has up to five people living in it. He proposed handling such requests on a case-by-case variance basis rather that making it apply citywide. He stated that he, too, is an attorney who does a lot of real property law, and commented that the attorneys who have spoken already are here as advocates for CCU and have a duty to represent CCU zealously. Their role is not to give an even-handed or unbiased opinion, he commented, so when they invite you to ask them questions, keep in mind that they are advocates, not citizens speaking in a balanced way. He asked the Council to give further consideration to this issue and get more public input. He expressed thanks to Jackie Herbst for returning his calls and keeping him informed.

Linda Housley, 8995 W. Bayaud Ave., commented that tonight is a very happy occasion for the citizens of Lakewood because tonight the Council will vote to change an aged and outdated ordinance in order to more appropriately reflect today's living standards for single-family and duplex homes. The neighborhoods of Meadowlark, Moore Subdivision, and Alameda Heights, in conjunction with the City Council, have worked diligently to preserve the integrity of our neighborhoods. I endorse an ordinance change and ask the Council to reconsider the 400 square feet per person allowance and change it to 500 square feet per person. This is not just an issue of addressing college students living within single-family neighborhoods, but to one that provides some overall protection against business entities taking over what they view as prime target neighborhoods, such as Moore and Meadowlark, and packing people into these single-family homes to the limits of the law and sometimes beyond. She displayed a sign, saying it was one of seven removed from Moore Subdivision and Meadowlark on Saturday afternoon. She commented this is what is spawned from investors coming in and buying up homes and that the sign should more accurately read, "Contractors, investors, opportunists, looking for profit at your neighborhood's expense". She urged the Council to reconsider and amend the proposed ordinance, and then expressed dismay that the word "dormitory" had been removed from the proposed ordinance. Since this term played such a large role in the current controversy, wouldn't it be better to develop a clearer definition of "dormitory", rather than treating it as though it never existed, she asked.

Dave Wolf, 18 Balsam St., commented that the testimony presented tonight supporting removal of "dormitory" from the ordinance seems to focus on the assertion that a dormitory is different from a motel, hotel and boarding house. He said he agrees, but that this doesn't mean it is a family-like structure with a sense of permanency. There is no sense of permanency when the minute one severs one's relationship with a college or university, the person is gone from that dormitory. People are assigned to live in a dormitory. Unrelated people that typically rent a house usually do so because they're friends and have agreed in advance to share the house and maybe even share expenses and create a family-like structure. He applauded the City staff for wanting to be consistent in its application of the ordinances, but hoped that staff were more concerned about being right than about being consistent. If someone made a mistake seven years ago in the interpretation of an ordinance, that mistake should not be perpetuated in order to maintain consistency.

Kathy Sincere, 125 S. Zephyr, referred to her son, Dave, who died unexpectedly two weeks ago at the age of 28, and said he grew up in the Alameda Heights neighborhood and loved Lakewood. She expressed hope that 20 years from now, other young adults like Dave will be able to say they grew up in Alameda Heights, Meadowlark Park, and that they still live there and believe Lakewood is a wonderful town. She referred to a recent TV show she'd seen regarding how the interstate system in New York had cut through and destroyed a lot of old neighborhoods causing the failure of many small businesses. Residents of one village rallied and successfully fought City Hall in New York and today we have their legacy - the quaint, preserved borough of Greenwich Village. She said the neighbors were present tonight rallying for their beloved Lakewood. They want to preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods so they can leave a legacy to their children. She asked the Council to change the proposed ordinance to allow one person per 500 square feet, excluding unfinished basements, to retain the word "dormitory" as an important example of the illegal use of single-family household, and asked for a shorter time period than three years for compliance with the new ordinance. She addressed Mr. Rock's comments about the difficulty of enforcing ordinances and wondered why we have any laws at all. We seem to be able to enforce other laws, so why can't we enforce this one, she asked.

Newt Vaughan, 8663 W. Hawaii Dr., said he supports the rest of these people and he'd also like the formula to exclude basements. He said he has a finished basement in his house, but would not allow anyone to sleep down there for fire safety reasons. He commented further regarding older homes built before regulations required exit windows, saying they are firetraps for anyone sleeping downstairs.

Bonnie Ferguson, 1420 Holland St., said she is the chairperson of the 13th Avenue Citizens Coalition, which supports one person per 500 square feet, excluding unfinished basements. She expressed hope that the Council has the wisdom to see that the majority of the people here tonight have been here for the past six to eight weeks discussing these issues with you. They have made it very clear that they think it is a good idea to put in some regulations. She also asked that the word "dormitory" be left in.

Gary Theander, 12860 W. Cedar Drive, said he has listened to tonight's testimony and said the change from the current maximum of 10 unrelated persons in a single-family household to 5 is a significant change. The transitional period of three years is reasonable. The issue of transientness is typical of rental properties, he commented. In America, we are allowed to buy and sell real estate and rent out our property. This is a citywide issue, not just concerning university students. He expressed support for the ordinance being considered tonight and said he thinks it is well written, that staff has researched it well and that it will benefit the entire community of Lakewood.

Michael O'Beirne - 25 North Cody Court - Lakewood, Colorado, said the Council needs to consider declining school enrollments. These houses are being inhabited by students who don't have children, he commented. His kids go to South Lakewood Elementary. Jeffco school enrollments are declining, he continued, saying that he'd hate for this to happen in his neighborhood. If these properties are averted over to CCU as a nonprofit they will not be paying property taxes and the City needs this revenue. Mr. Rock spoke about needing five more code enforcement officers, Mr. O'Beirne said. This was a proposal Mr. O'Beirne put forward in the Lakewood Sentinel using a computer program to evaluate the number of officers needed given the number of complaints and number of citizens. He referred to a proposal earlier this year to add two more code enforcement officers and asked Mr. Harris or Mr. Rock to report how many will be hired so that the integrity of our neighborhoods can be maintained.

There being no more speakers, Mayor Burkholder closed Public Comment at 9:46 p.m. and called for a recess until 10:00 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:03 p.m.

Mayor Burkholder suggested that Council address questions before putting forth a motion. Council members agreed by consensus. Based on questions by council members, staff responded as follows:

Regarding finished vs. unfinished basements, it is very difficult to get into a house if there is a complaint about too many people living there, so all the City can rely on are records provided by the County Assessor and City Building Permit records. It is very easy to figure out the square footage of a home from these records without actually going into the home.

Regarding safety issues, single-family homes are regulated through the Building Code and there are requirements for habitation in the dwelling unit, including ventilation and daylight. Two modes of egress are also required in order for a person to live in the basement: a stairwell and a window that meets Building Code requirements. Drywall and carpeting are not requirements.

Throughout the City there are currently many single-family dwelling basements being used by related family members or by unrelated individuals for sleeping or living purposes, family room, etc., so it is logical to include basements in the square footage formula. Code enforcement officers may not walk around to the back yard of a property to see if there is an egress window from the basement without permission from the property owner. If the individual comes to the City and asks for a building permit to install a window, then the inspector has the right to go on the property and see that it's installed correctly. The Fire District may have some additional authority, but it is unlikely that authority extends to doing the kind of inspection needed to determine whether an egress window exists. Jefferson County Assessor's records include information about square footage, and whether or not a basement is finished.

Regarding enforcement of the ordinance, no additional code enforcement officers will be hired to enforce this portion of the code. There are currently four code enforcement officers who work the street, plus one working supervisor. One additional enforcement officer has been added to next year's budget. The four officers handled 4800 cases last year and each case entails numerous contacts or complaints. In 2001, the City had only 39 cases related to the issue of how many unrelated individuals were occupying a single-family household. In 2002 we had 28 cases related to this issue.

Regarding the process for violations, an anonymous complaint is received and an officer goes out, knocks on the door and asks if a family or unrelated individuals live there. If there is no answer, a letter goes to the property owner asking for this information. If the officer doesn't believe the answer, the City has to provide evidence in order for the Municipal or District Court to enforce the code. The City has to prove that whatever is happening there is illegal. The burden of proof is on the City when a property owner is taken to court. This procedure is the same for all code violations. The suggestion that each and every rental unit be dealt with using the variance process would create a substantial burden for the City. Thirteen percent of all single-family residential property in the City consists of rental properties. Variances should not apply to such a large use in the City. It is better that the Zoning Ordinance address the use citywide. The idea of requiring variances regarding the rental of property raises a number of constitutional issues.

Regarding dormitories, the issue mentioned frequently tonight was regarding the criteria used to evaluate whether a home is being used for a household. There is a definition in Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance for dormitories, as well as motels and hotels. Uses are regulated through Article 5 and that's where these references to dormitory have caused such concern. Taking out the reference to "dormitory" to describe transient nature does not remove the definition for dormitory from the City Code. The reference to dormitories in describing transient kinds of uses has caused confusion because people have interpreted this to mean that dormitories are not permitted in the zone district. It is true that a stand-alone dormitory is not a permitted use in the single-family residential zone, but as an adjunct to a university, which is permitted in the zone, dormitories are permitted. Dormitories are a use by right for schools in all residential zone districts, which is the other half of the issue that the Council will be discussing beginning with the December 2nd Study Session. Dormitories will be addressed at that time.

Four or five students living in a house next to CCU is not a dorm, just as four to five retail clerks living in a house across from Colorado Mills is not a dorm. Short-term leases are not permitted in single-family zone districts.

Regarding apartments, town homes and condos, these are included in the Zoning Ordinance as multi-family units and are permitted in the 4R and 5R zone districts.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-42 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott.

Councilwoman Wise moved to amend the motion to reinstate the term "dormitory" in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, regarding Section 17-2-2(164)A(4)(c) of the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, to read: "'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, and a concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency, as opposed to the transient nature of a bed and breakfast establishment, motel, hotel or dormitory". The proposed amendment was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.

Councilwoman Wise expressed support for the neighbors who raised issues regarding the elimination of the term "dormitory" from the original language in this section. Councilman Stevens said the reason for this change was to clean up the ordinance and eliminate the confusion. Dormitories, a school use, have a use by right in R1A, RR, 1R, and 2R zone districts. The issue of use by right is going to be dealt with by the Council after dealing with the issue of occupancy rate. The definition of dormitory is not being taken out of the City Code, he stated.

Councilwoman Martin said she supports leaving the term in because the Council is not dealing with college uses or dormitories tonight. She urged Council to leave it in and deal with it when school uses are considered. The neighborhood needs some reassurance that they're getting what they want, she said.

Councilman Murphy said he would vote against the amendment because the term "dormitory" in this section creates confusion. A home rented by four or five unrelated individuals is not a dormitory, regardless of its location.

Councilwoman Kesselman said the topic of use by right fits properly in the discussion to be undertaken at the next Study Session so she would not be supporting this amendment.
Vote: 2 Ayes. 8 Nays (Burkholder, Herbst, Kesselman, Murphy, Martin, Elliott, Stevens, Koop). The motion to amend was defeated.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to amend the previous motion to change the gross square footage from 400 to 500 in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, paragraph 2 under the definition of a "Single Family Household", to read "Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per five hundred (500) gross square feet in the dwelling unit (including basements and excluding attached and/or detached garages) not to exceed five (5) individuals per dwelling unit". The proposed amendment was seconded by Councilman Stevens.

Councilman Stevens said he would support this amendment because it will help strengthen the integrity of the neighborhoods, especially since basements will be included in the square footage. He commented that only homes of 2500 square feet or larger will be allowed to have the maximum number of unrelated individuals.

Councilwoman Koop said she lives in a modest sized home like many of the people who made public comment tonight and that she has supported lowering the maximum number of unrelated individuals from the beginning.

Councilwoman Kesselman said she recognizes the strength of Lakewood's neighborhoods and will support this amendment.

Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion to amend carried.

Mayor Burkholder called for discussion on the main motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-42 as amended.

Councilwoman Wise read a statement from Councilman Booher supporting the ordinance if amended to include one unrelated person per 500 square feet and leaving the term "dormitory" in this section of the ordinance.

Councilman Stevens stated that neighborhoods hold much power and influence in this City, but neighborhoods give up that power when they are unwilling to participate and be at the table to discuss the issues. Neighborhood leaders had the opportunity to participate, to be at the table and help craft this new ordinance, but some of the leadership was unable to do so because of an unwillingness to talk with CCU and to focus on the new ordinance instead of trying to enforce the old ordinance. Neighborhood leaders have an obligation to keep their neighbors informed on the issues and convey the facts, not spread rumors. Disseminating the right facts would have helped clean up and eliminate a lot of the problems we've seen over these issues, he continued. It's one thing to disagree on the issues, but when it comes to citizens attacking Council's integrity, commitment and honesty, due to different opinions, this can be very nasty. Leadership should recognize that this is not the most effective way to communicate with elected officials. There was an assault in your neighborhood, he said - neighbor against neighbor. Tensions were high and were created by the hysteria that neighborhood leadership could have quelled with the facts and the truth. For all the attacks and all the bantering that's gone back and forth, Councilman Stevens expressed hope that the neighborhood would recognize that this isn't about a simple majority or minority, it's about people living together and getting along. The success of the neighborhood organization is dependent on the leadership.

Mayor Burkholder commented on the issue of amortization and asked for clarification. City Attorney Roger Noonan stated that changing the ordinance would make existing uses that are currently legal become legal nonconforming uses. Those would be eliminated by amortization, a reasonable amount of time that would allow property owners to recoup some of their investment. Any amount of time shorter than three years would expose the City to a financial liability.

Councilman Elliott expressed his support of the three-year amortization, but he wanted citizens to know that five years would protect the City more. Approving a three-year period could result in legal challenge by an investor, he said. The City is still exposed. He expressed concern about the three-year period as being too short, but said he would support it.

Councilman Stevens added to his earlier comments, saying that Bob Johnson, former president of the Mid-Lakewood Civic Association, acted diplomatically, gentlemanly and exhibited great leadership. He expressed his admiration and thanks to Mr. Johnson throughout this process. He also thanked Linda Housley for the many conversations discussing this issue and for her input.

Councilman Murphy commented that the neighborhood should feel proud for its passion over this issue, its commitment and perseverance resulting in bringing about real change. He reviewed the changes that will result because of that hard work and commitment.

Councilwoman Kesselman expressed appreciation for all the email messages and phone calls sent regarding these issues.

Councilwoman Wise expressed appreciation to neighborhood representatives, saying that CCU is the symptom, not the problem, and it is unfortunate that the university became the target. To mobilize an entire neighborhood in such a short period of time is phenomenal, she said, and acknowledged that it's hard getting through the "storming" period of a group's development. She affirmed that the discourse with the neighborhood over the past month has been incredible and expressed hope that she might tap that support when she runs for reelection.

Councilwoman Koop also expressed thanks to everyone for turning out for the meetings and voicing opinions. You should feel good that all of you have made a difference, she said.

Mayor Burkholder explained that the process for dealing with this issue has been accelerated since it came to our attention in mid-June. The Council has been in a gathering mode for the past 90 days, listening to both sides of the issue and trying to come up with the best public policy. He also expressed appreciation for the calls and emails and affirmed that the Council listened to what everyone said. He agreed that neighborhoods are as important as businesses to the City and stated that the Council will continue to think that way.

Mayor Burkholder called for a vote on the main motion to adopt Ordinance O-2002-42 as amended. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder called for a recess. The Council reconvened at 11:15 p.m.

ITEM 35 - GENERAL BUSINESS

ITEM 21 - RESOLUTION 2002-88 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR BID #2331, LAKEWOOD HERITAGE CENTER VISITOR CENTER

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to approve Resolution R-2002-88. It was seconded by Councilman Elliott.

Councilwoman Saum stated that she would vote against the resolution because she concurs with the comments made tonight by Citizens for Open Space and thinks it is inappropriate to proceed with this project given the current financial condition of the City. She said she understands that funds are available for building the Visitors Center, but that additional funds will be needed for maintenance and staffing. This project is not needed, nor a priority at this time, she concluded.

Councilwoman Kesselman said she understands the open space concerns and she thinks Lakewood has demonstrated a significant commitment by continuing to acquire open space. She said she would support the resolution because the Council has established a master plan and made commitments that are really important to the citizens of Lakewood who have participated in hearings related to that plan.

Councilman Murphy said he concurs regarding the process that has already taken place, such as the master plan that was passed when he was on the Planning Commission. There was a lot of citizen participation then, he commented. The Visitors Center at the Heritage Center will be a great attraction, he commented. "Citizens for Open Space" is a great name; we're all for open space. He read some statistics about Lakewood's parks: 85% of the parks and open space is undeveloped. This shows the City's commitment to passive open space for its citizens.

Councilwoman Martin said she will support the resolution and gave the example of an art museum that might have a number of pieces she doesn't like or appreciate, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. Choosing to display the period that had such an impact on the development of our City is very valuable.

Councilwoman Herbst asked Community Resources Director Kathy Hodgson to address a couple of questions. Ms. Hodgson stated that since the 1996 master plan was adopted, there have been no changes to the plan. To her knowledge, there was no opposition to the plan and Council approved it unanimously. Originally, the Visitor's Center was to be constructed as part of Phase I and completed by 1999. Currently, Phase II is underway. The diner, general store, fire station and gas station have been acquired. The reception of a local motel and a theater are yet to come.

Councilman Stevens commented that what one person considers an eyesore or junk can be another person's treasure and as time goes on, the Heritage Center and Visitor Center will become very valuable. The plan has been place, money has been raised, and a lot of effort has gone into it, he said. The plan was approved following public input and was approved unanimously at a meeting attended by Councilwoman Saum. This tract of land, 13 acres, will not be expanded, nor will it encroach any further on the park. The City tries to meet all the needs of its citizens and has an obligation to serve the various constituents within the community, he concluded.

Councilwoman Saum confirmed that she was here and voted for the master plan. At the time, she did not realize the extent this village would turn into and said she was sorry she did not understand that.

Mayor Burkholder referred to a public comment regarding improving Colfax Avenue and said there had been a lot of effort in doing just that. A lot will be happening along Colfax in the future. He said the promises made in 1996 have been used when working with staff as he personally raised over half a million dollars for the project. Community Resources leverages its general fund dollars and brings in over three times that amount to fund projects all over the City. Let's move forward and live up to the commitments already made, he said.

Mayor Burkholder called for a vote on adoption of Resolution 2002-88. Vote: 9 Ayes. 1 Nay (Saum). The motion carried.

ITEM 36 - REPORTS

Mayor Burkholder thanked citizens, council and staff for their fine work tonight.

Councilman Elliott reported on the Jeffco Governments meeting last week and thanked Tom Gougeon, Mark Falcone and John Mullins for presenting information about the Belmar project and Colorado Mills. He also congratulated Jefferson County Open Space on its 30th anniversary and expressed appreciation for the Colorado Mills grand opening on November 14th.

Councilwoman Wise congratulated the incoming officers and said she looks forward to working with them.

Councilwoman Saum said she also enjoyed the evening with Open Space celebrating its 30th anniversary and commented that the Jeffco Governments meeting was also very good.

Councilwoman Koop reported that she and Councilman Murphy attended the Lumberg Elementary School last week for its Thanksgiving feast. She said it was a wonderful event put on by teachers and teachers' aides. She commended Patty Johnson, who headed up the event.

Councilman Stevens reported that the Westgate Improvement Association meeting is Tuesday night (tomorrow) at 7:00 p.m. at Horan McConaty Funeral Home. He expressed thanks to Council President Cheryl Wise and Mayor Protem Ray Elliott for their leadership over the past year.

Councilwoman Martin apologized for voting incorrectly on the amendment that she seconded and she meant to vote for, not against.

Councilman Murphy stated that the Citizens for Lakewood's Future fundraiser Saturday night was really fun. He expressed thanks to the host and hostess, Carlos and Vicki Castillo.

Councilwoman Kesselman reported that the Denver Council of Regional Governments was going to be presenting some seminars, including one on water in Colorado. She will send around registration information for anyone interested in attending.

City Manager Mike Rock thanked Council for its tenacity in staying with the zoning ordinance change over the past six months. He also thanked Councilwoman Wise and Councilman Elliott for their work as council officers. People don't realize how much extra time this takes, he said, but the reason meetings go smoothly is because of all the preparation that goes into them by the council officers. He congratulated Councilwoman Herbst and Councilman Murphy on their election as Mayor Protem and Council President. Mr. Rock reported the recent the death of Lakewood's first City Manager, Walt Kane, who also served a second time as City Manager just prior to Mr. Rock.

Mayor Burkholder encouraged citizens to visit the new Colorado Mills.

ITEM 37 - ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Burkholder adjourned at the meeting at 11:35 p.m.

Submitted by
Sharon Blackstock, Acting 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