Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-02 (Regular) Meeting Minutes• 1. Call to Order ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE COUNTY , COLO R ~DO Regular Session June 2, 2008 The regular meeting of the Englewood City Counc il was called to order by Mayor Woodward at 7:47 p.m. 2. Invocation The invocation was given by Coun ci l Member Mccaslin . 3. Pledge of Allegl1nce The Pledge of Alleg iance was led by Council Membe r Mccaslin . 4. Roll Call Presen t: Absent: A quorum was presen t. • Also presen t: Council Members Jefferson, Moore , Penn , Oakley, Mccasli n, Wilson , Woodward None City Manage r Sears City ~ttomey Brotzman Deputy City Manager Fla herty City Clerk Ellis Deputy City Clerk Bush Director Gryglewlcz, Finance and Administrative Services Director Fonda , Utili ties Director Kahm , Publ ic Works Engineering/Capital Projects Adm ini strator Henderson , Pub lic Works Director Wh ite , Commun ity Developmen t Senior Planner Langon , Commun ity Developmen t Pol ice Ch ief Vandermee Po lice Commander Watson 5. Consideration of Minu tes of Previous Seaalon (a) COUNCI L MEMBER PENN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED , TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 2008 . Ma r or Woodward as ked if there were any correcti on s or modificat ions . There were none . Vote results : Ayes : Cou ncil Members Penn. Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward , Jefferson . Wi lson , Oakley Nays : None • Mo tion carried . 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment There we re no scheduled visitors . Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 2 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment (a) Marjorie Bec ker, an Englewood res ide nt , said I am here to speak th is evenin g, In wh at I think of • as the Kent Development , but it has some other names on your agenda . I was made aware r ': a proble m that I consider very serious , o·,er the past week . II has to do with solar access . My understanding -~ '.M p1 oj ect is that building th e tall structure , that is scheduled to be bu il t, will ensure that many properties will , during the entire winter months , be in its shadow and that is what I want to talk to you about today . I don't live in that area, but my big concern is, and has been for many years ... when I used to be on Planning and Zoning ... solar access . I am surprised that in our City we don 't have a solar access ordinance , which, if we did, I think would fore sta ll some of what you may be hearing this evening . What I do know , is that if you are a gardener and your so lar access is taken away from you because of a structure , you have to either completely redesign your garden ~ just do away with it , or your plants are go ing to die, because they have to have a certain arnount of sun . Eve 1/ garden is itself a micro cl imate and for \~at reasoa in your own gardening area in your own property , you will set your plants according to the sun that 1•ou have . When that sun is ta ken away from you , you have to restructure ii. I am also very concerned that with the high energy cost that we have coming up, and everybody knows that is com ing , If these propert ies are in darkness ... the shadow ... during the winter mon '.t,;, the '1ave fore ver lost any possibility of access ing solar to heat the ir homes or to heat water. This is a scrtou s m:_ Jke as fa r as I am concerned . And, I am hoping tonight , when you are considering this , and in to•. l et.,,~ •h•' you will look at solar access as a major situation for surrounding property . I would hope , as I saic! uetr;:::, '!, 11 =-ri r~.,,; dr;cisi on is made ton ight and in the future , that this Council will direct... whomever it is that you need to di ,ect . to look at solar access . I think , my understanding is, Boulder has th is solar access law and protects the solar access for different properties . This particular high rise building is not the only thing that I am concerned abcut as far as solar access . In our current mode of scrape off and build multiple storied build ings , I observe that solar access for the north side of those buildings is now limited ... when the building is that tall , you cut down the solar access . Take~ look at it. So again , I am hopeful that Council will direct someone in th e <lepartme nts to look at solar • access and consider that in the future and then again, consider It now when you are dealing with this Kent Development. She asked if the ,e were any questions . I thank you for letting me present. Mayor Woodward said thank you . (b) Jerry Nave said I live one block west of Belleview and Federal. I liva right in back of the Shell Circle K gas station . For about the last 4 or 5 summers they have had recorded bird calls that go on 24 hours a ~ay , 7 days a week , that recycle every 4 minutes . I have talked to the Englewood police , but they sai d it is not their birds . I have called the corporate office at Circle K and they don 't want to talk to me . I talked to the managers and different people wo rking in Circle K ... we don 't know anything about it and we can '\ turn it off even if we did know what was go ing on . I have talked to some people in Code Enforcement...and if anybody here knows that address . I invite everybody and anybody here to come over to my house, any time of the day or night , any day , we will set in my backyard an1 you can listen to these birds and yo u can tell me if they are in my trees ... like Circle K cla ims they are ... or if they are scaring away the pigeons , like a former student of mine told me ... that is what they have these bird s for. I am tired of them . I don 't need them . I don 't need them 24 hour s a day and now since they got away with that , they now have the musi c on their island that I can hear in my back yard . which is 40 or 50 feet awa y. I don 't care to lis ten to the music . I don 't care to listen to th e birds . I need someth ing done . Thank you . Mayor Woodward sa id thank you . Mr . Nave said also , one other thing . Last summer I got two notices on my door from my anonymous ne ighbors ... shut the f-ing birds up or we are go ing to go to court . I would love that. I would love to go to court . They aren 't my , ••~s . Somebcdy please take me to court. (c) Melan ie Nelson said I am speaking , perh a,s for the last time , abcut t~e towers on the north end • of the Kent Place development. Because of this nexibility ame dment , that's what I call Amendment 2, I think it Is a good title for it , that is on the table right now ... on the table at the request of Continuum ... you , the Council , have the power, the leverage to attach conditions to th e approval of this Amendment. Continuum wants ii badly . They need the nexibilily that this gives them in a very volatile housing market and I am actually qu ite • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 3 sympathet ic to that. But you can undo a very bad thing that you did and that is pass ing Amendment 1. And I am telling you , I am not the only one who thinks it is bad . We canvassed our neighborhood and there was not one positive comment about ii. People are very angry and frustrated . You can impose it... you can re-dress th e griev ance in a way , by imposing a condition about passage of Amen dm ent 2 ... that the towers at the north end of Kent Place are significantly reduced or tall towers be in lhe south . ll is ridicu lous that they are on the north en( !• 's iike having a cake ... they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the towers. but they want us to have the shadow. This is root about...l'm not asking for a delay , 1 am asking for a negot iation within this Amendment that is on the table now . It wo uld be ... if you do not impose conditions, it Is like giving away the ranch for no price . Why would you do that? When we canvassed the neighborhood , it was very inst ructive . There is an extremely high level of cynicism as to what you have done and if you don 't know that, you need to know it. We didn't think you needed to know ... a lot of the reason that people haven 't been involved ... as I haven 't until pretty recently ... is that we didn't know that we needed to come here and tell you that we didn 't want to be poked in the eye with a dirty stick, to use an expression that my Dad used to like . We didn't know that we needed to tell you that we did n't want to be plunged into winier gloom . You are here to represent us anrl we just thought you would do that. But now you are on notice that the people affected are uniformly and vehemently opposed to the towers on the north end of Kent Place developmeol. There is just no other way to get aro und ii. That is just the way it is . I am resentful about the lime that I have had to spend coming here , cominp to meetings , f,ann 'no what I am going to say ... it is extremely stressful for me . I hate speaking in front , '3roup . This is why I voted for you to do this for me ... to represent. We voted for you to be our representative , not our adversaries . You have very definitely been our adversaries . People are frustrated and angry at you . I am sorry to spea k so bluntly , but that is the truth . So , do not interpret a seemingly lack o• input from the ne ighbors ... as tacit approval for what you have done . II most definitely is not tac it approval . It i,, a combination of naivety and cynicism that you have bred by your act ions . So , I would just like to make a little friendly reminder here ... you and you and you , all of y~c are silting in those chairs , not because Cont inuu;n voted you in , we voted you In. We elected you to be our representatives and a reflection of our wishes . Making decisions about the project • that would put part of us in shadow is a big decision lo make . You are making decisions about something that is going to be on our landscape for many years and to make ii on the bas is of short term contingencies is extremely short sighted , as well as unethical kno wing now what you know about the ne ighborhood 's feelings about these towers . If you do not act in accordan e with the neighborhoods wishes at this point , now that you know. there is no other interpretation to put on it other than yo u are wantonly disregard ir.g what we hav6 asked for again and again . I can 't tell you how many people we talked to that rolled their eyes when we talked about trying to get through to Council about this iss ue . My hope springs eternal though ... this is not the outcome I envisioned, that you would jc ;t leave thing r as they are . Nevertheless , that you have bred such deep cynicism In local government in our neighborhood , thi s alon e should give yo,; great pau sa. Or may be , you just don 't give a damn . I am betting that you do . Mayor Woodward said than k you . (d) Linda Olson , said I wanted to reiterate some of the things that Mela nie said . I got drawn into this development of the seminary th ing a little bit later. At the very beginning stages when the first th ing went through . 1 was at several hearings and thought th ings had been really clear and citizens had been very positive about the whole thing and not be iog directly impacted by it , t never received any further notice of what had happened in Amendment 1 and Amendment 2. I am really concerned as someone who sees folks, such as my neighbors to the south and the consternation that they have , and the la ck of Information that perhaps they've had in the process , so I have come here to ask you to at lea st hold some kind of a further public hearing ... maybe a ne ighbor hood meeting that would involve folks on Floyd Place and Floyd Aven ue and may be to the north , to talk about what really are the comparisons we are talk ing about from the first decis ion to the second, which is Amendment 1 and then lo the third , which is Amendment 2, to get the information out there very clearly . It is not clear even in asking some of you , is there go !fig to be more shadowing of more hou ses or not. It wasn 't clear in any of your responses as to whether or not there was . So , I think there is a la ck of information so I would like to see us try to come up with some kind of an infonnation session that does a cle,.,· • comparison of what happens between all the three decis ions that have been made and a pending third one and a second on ... a clear comparison of the traffic . Maybe this is on a website somewhere and I Just can 't find it...of what the impact is of a housing area versus a boutique hotel , which I still don 't quite understand how that fits In with that setting . Bui I want to be an ally to our neighbors , not just because they are to the south of me and close , but I hope that we ... all across Englewood can look at the City as a whole as to how thes e decisio ns will Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 4 impact the economic development. I have been positive about the development ol that site . I thin k th e development has been done very tastefully and I think that has been a pos itiv e wilh ir. the whole neighborhood . It is the impact of the high bu ilding that has been th e biggest concern . And then now , the boutique hole l, which somewhat seems like it was sl ipped under th e table , like maybe we won 't do it, but what happens in ten years when that area doesn 't support a bout ique hot el ... could it then go into a low er end hotel, and then whal happens with that. We don 't have a lot of control 011ce we have made this decision . I guess I am as king us to ba ck up a bit , if we can , and try and be allies with our ne ighbors that are not ne cessarily dire cting us in my neighborhood . Thanks . Mayor Woodward said thank you . (e) Chris Hoagland , an Englewood res ident , sa id good even ing . I have been a volunteer member of the Code Enforc,.ment Advisory Committee for a numbe r of years and I was quite involved with the Vic ious An imal Task Force . 1 attended several of the ir meet ings , alt hough I was nol the formal liaison to their Comm ittee . I was also active in the sub committee that combined various Code Enforcement Advisory Committee members and the Vicious An imal Task Force to work on the proposal tha t th ey had originally offered ... mostly with the goal of help ing to clarify language and the logic of the oocument. I bas icall y Just ha ve two brief comments th is even ing . Firs t, I reread th e final document here and I found three typographic or language errors that I think probably should be corrected . I hope it is not too late to suggest that the Council con sider fixing these . On Page 6, in the paragraph labeled , Tethering 7-1A-4 : the first sentence , last part , reads ·except as permitted in the " ... I believe thal "the " is a typographical error and should read ·except as perm itted in this sect ion ". The second item is a fa irly minor com me nt...on Page 8 in 7-1A-7: Vaccination Requ ire d ... ! th ink just for the sake of clarity that the heading for that sectio n should read , "Rabies Vaccination Requ ired " si nce that Is the only typ!! of vaccination that is discussed in there . And ther finally , on Page 9 on the th ird ll n~ "r from the bottom , there is a word there that has been bothering me for almost a year now and I finally got around to looking ii up and I don 't think ii belongs there . Mayor Woodward said where is this ? Mr. Hoagland said this is • on Page 9, in paragraph 6 and it is the third line from the bottom . The word is "debility" and I don 't th ink that is really what people have intended to put in there . Debility actually ... and I finally did look it up ... means feebleness and I th ink that the word "inju ry" would be more appropriate in the context of that sentence . At any rate , I also have one other comment and that is in reference to Councilman Moore 's proposed alternative language relating to the idea that an an imal and property owner should be allowed to train his animal wilhout any ki nd of physical restra int or off leash in his front yard . To be honest with you , I don 't know if we ever put th at to a formal motion and made a comment or made a resolu tion the night of the Vic ious Anim al Ta;~ For~e or Code Enforcement meeting , but I know that it was discussed in both comm ittees and in both committoss, It was unanimously recommended that Council not incorporate that into an ordinance , because of the potent ia l for an animal behaving badly , firstly ... bolting out of the yard and either threatening a person or another animal , and seco ndly , because of what we perce ive would be the diffic ulty that a Code Enforcement officer would have in writin g a citation for an an imal that was behaving in that manner , because essentially the property owner or the an imal owner could cl aim that the animal was actually under voice control and so that creates , I think, an enforcement issue for ou r an imal control officers. And that's it. Thank you very much for your co ns ideration . Mayor Woodward said thank you Ch ris . (f) Cynthia Searfoss , an Englewood res ident , said good even ing . I am one of the guilty part ies that was actually on ... an~ we p•efer to be called the Dangerou s Oog Tas k Force , not the Vicio us Dog Task Force ... and I am actuall y h ,re to address the very same issue that Mr . Hoagland Just spoke to . In the original Publ ic Hearing for this ord inance issue back on the 5th of February in 2007 , we had over 25 citizens come thal night and speak and every single citizen was very seriousl y co ncerned with the issue of publ ic safety . We also had a very large population of ma il carriers from across the City come and speak that evening . Th e co nce rn , of course , be ing safety when they are out doing the ir job , which the y are required and expected to do each and every day . And , o•, the Dangerous Dog Task Force our first task ... our first and only charge ... was to try to rev iew tne ord in:;nce to come up with a reasonable approach to animal control in the City of Englewood that • would give us r,ur best tools to enabl e publ ic safety . That was our first goal an d I agree with Mr. Hoagland that !he issu e of h·,ving your dog on your property , not ph ys ically confined or on le ash, does not address th e ma in miss ion of the Task Force , wh ich is to try to insure the greate st possibility of publ ic safety . The Task Force was unan imou s, th e Code Enforcement Comm ittee was unan imous and our stance that even on private property , the • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 5 an ima l ne ed s to be phys ica lly res trained eit he r by a leash or by a fe nce or some phys ical bar ri ers at all limes lo pro vi de the greatest public safely so that a dog do esn 't want to cross the stre et after a squ irrel, a dog doesn 't approach a child who is dog phob ic and doesn 't know whether the dog is go ing to jump , a ma ll carrier ca n safel1 do the ir job , or an elderly person is safe wa lki ng by your house every day . The notion that someone is go ing 10 be cogn izant of what their off lead dog or their out of fence dog is going to be dt•ing every moment that lh c:1 o,,. in the ir fron t yard garden ing or washing the car or visiti ng with a ne ighbor is opti, i<sllc But honestly , I i , (!(,y owner and I think it is naive to th ink that you have control over your dog when there ,s a sq uirrel ors Ui,IJ ~, something far more interesting than you . It is not realistic that that dog is completely go ing to pay attention · , everyth ing that you ask of it , at every given mome nt. So , in the interest of publ ic safely and that rp.all y is our goal on the Dangerous Dog Task Force ... ls public safely ... it really is best ifwe try to keep the community safe , It Is best If we do confine our dogs either on leash , even when they are in the front yard with us , or behind a fence , because that is our ultimate goal , wh ich is publi c safely. And it is a lot harder to have an inc ident if th e dog is confined . Than k you . Mayor Woodward said than k you . (g) Lorena Beauregard , an Englewood res ident, said I have been a letter carrier In Englewood io• l 3 years and have lived in my home approximately 23 years . I joined the Task Force, not only with the goal to pro tect carriers and as a single mother to protect my ch ildren in the commun ity , but also our canine commun ity. I work with a lot of an imals on my route and I would say 95% of those dogs are awesome dogs and awesome owners , but there Is a small percentage that don 't care about anybody but themselves and swear up and down that their dogs won 't attack and it has happened . II is so important to me that this ord inance goes through ... that the dogs be restrained when they are not In a fenced area . I talked to a lot of the elderly in the community that fear for the ir safely . They want the exercise , but they fear walk ing down their own street. Th ey fear not so much a vicious dog or a dangerous dog , but more of being jumped on by a friendly dog and being hurt . We • need to protect our co mmunity and I need your help in pa ssing th is ord inance restra ining the dogs ... for myself, for my co-workers , for my chi ldren and ou r elderly. Please keep that in mind . Mayor Woodward said thank you. (h) Linda Hart , an Eng lewood res ident, sa id I also would like to speak to the proposed amendment to the ordinance . When we put this together , we did a lot of discussion on that issue and trying to be fa ir to the dog owners, to the dog and to the people pass ing by and to the postal workers . A dog on its own property is going to be defens ive of that property . It is different from a dog out at a dog park or in a different situation . That is natural for the dog , if it is going to be defensive , it is going to be defensive of its own property and its own fami ly on that property . I would like to ask the Task Force to pass the ord inan ce as we wrote it and has been supported by the full Tas k Force . Thank you . Mayor Woodward sa id thank you . (i ) Laura Hagan , an A,vada res ident , sai d thank you for giving me some time this even ing . I have a German Shepherd dog named Role . I don 't know if you know our story , but for a torn dress and a scratch , my dog was ordered put down . Not the first hearing , I was the only one that showed up and I rece ived a privacy fence and dog train ing . The judge thought the rest itution was too high and called a second hearin,, When then she showed up for court with a few frie nds from the ne ighbo rhood say ing they were afra id for the ,. • !J:•'s lives, they could only cla im he barked at the fen ,e. So , first offense with no history ever of aggression , , , ·ne Impossible became possible becaus e of tt ,e vague word ing in the A,vada 's pet laws. I am not tryi 11 _ . intrude on the City of Englewood , I know that all of you , including the Task Force , have been work ing for son,e lime on th is and , by the way, I th ink it is a great idea and should be a model for other cities . My actual goal was to ra ise awareness through the med ia about vague laws, lengthy Impoundments and attorneys for the justice for our furry family members . I thought my case was a fluke , but si nce then , in three months now , my attorney has • dealt with four cases . In talk ing to th e Task Force , they are do ing a fantastic job . I just want you to keep an open mind with being fa ir and lett ing the Task Force help guide you in your decisions . That Is all , thanks , Ma yor Woodward said thank you . Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 6 U) Mary Secor, an Englewood resident, sa id I came and I never know if I am going lo open my mouth or not, but I came in support of my ne ighbor about the Kent Village development. Bui I want to ma ke a quick comment about this dangerous dog stuff now that I'm hearing about your consider;r.; something about that. We had a rental neighbor next door for about a year who had a dog who wa s co .. ,;,,r,e:1 by an electri c fence ... all the way up to th e sidewa lk of the property, the front sidewal k. And that dog . allh every passerby , including our former ma il person ... would charge up to th e fro nt yard and scare th e bejcsuc out of any passerby . So, if yo u are doing someth ing about dangerous dogs and curb ing dangerous dogs , if you could get rid of the allowance that allows the dog to be restrained by an electric fence , because the dog can ~lways charge lhru an electric fence , first of all , and then , you kn ow, I j ust th ink it doesn't he lp peopl e's ment~I or cnrdiac health ha ving a dog charge at them up to the sidewalk. So, on the Kent Village development... the Conti nuu m • development. .. when we did first hear about it as ne ighbors , we all thought it was a grea' 'nes , a great setup, I shouldn't say we thought it was a great idea , but we thought okay, this is okay, we can live wi th this . I think there were a very few people who knew about the move of the tower to the north side of the property, un ti l we got form el lett~rs from Continuum about a meeting after that had been done , apparently. So, we were pretty much surprised ... the tall tower is not going to affect my property at all , but I th ink in tha t ne ighborhood particularly , you are al l pretty much ~cod neighbors to each other and the only problem properties are generally the rental properties. There Is one down the street from me that some poor woman lived in who had 8 cats , a caged squ irrel and feces all over the house and a totally unkempt yard on the outside. I just kind o! have a feel ing that if there is a tall tower on the north side of that property , that that is going to turn those properties , that border that area or are affected by that shadow, into more rental property, which is pure speculation on my part. Anyway, as I was driving down here I looked over at the Kimberly Village and Marks Apartments that are kind of bordering that neighborhood as well and an older ne ighbor told me that when they were p.,.,osing to put their property up that they kind of gave a concess ion to the ne ighborhood to put that park space in between all of tho se apartments and the Hampden Village neighborhood and lo th is day, that park space is useG by many , many people, not just the Hampden Hills neighborhood . I was kind of wondering if Continuum could possibly be a good ne ighbor and move that tower back to the center area of your ya rd , so to speak , or just klnd of dec rea~, • the height of the property. And , that would be a really nice concession and then we could possibly live with the envelope idea. provided that was nice . Tha, ,k you . Mayor Woodward said than k you . 8. Communications, Proclamations and Appolntmenta There were no communications , proclamati ons or appo intments . 9. Consent Agenda COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9 (a) (I), (ii). (a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading (i) COUNCIL BIL L NO. 26 , INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINING TO THE LEGAL PUBLICATION PROCESS . (ii) COUN CIL BILL NO . 27 , INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACC EPTANCE OF A VICTIM ASSISTANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT (VALE) GRANT FRuM THE VICTIM ASSISTANCE LAW ENFORCEM E"IT BOARD OF THE 18 '" JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Vote results : Ayes : Council Mem bers Penn . Mccasli n, Moore , Woodward , Jefferso n, Wilson , Oakley • • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 7 Nays : None Moti on carried (b) Approval of Ord inan ces on Second Reading T1,ere were no add itiunal item s subm itted tor approval on second read ing . (See Agenda Item 11 .) (c ) Resolutions and Motions There were no add itional resolutions or motions subm itted tor approval. (See Agenda Item 11 .) 10. Public Hearing Items No public hearing was scheduled before Counc il. 11 . Ordinances, Resolution and Motions (a ) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading (I) Public Wo rk s Director Kahm presented a recommend~tion to adopt a bill for an ordinance authorizing Contract Ame ndment No . 1 to the exist ing In tergo vernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the construction of th e bridge over the Platte River at Oxford Avenue . He said I did bring Dave Henderson , Engineering and Capital Projects Admin istrator, because if there are any detailed questions on these projects that we are go ing to talk about tonight, Da ve is the one who has been doing all the leg work the last four years . We are looking for a bill for an ordinance to amend our IGA with • COOT for the pedestrian bridge over th e Platte River at Oxford ... that Is alongside the golf course . The original IGAwas passed in 2006 and it obligated $103 ,200 .00 in Federal funds for the design of the pedestrian bridge . We went forw ard with our desig n work and we were ready wi th the design last fall . We have been pat' ntly waiting on COOT , since last fall , for them to go forward with this IGA, wh ich would amend and add $476,000 .00 in Federal funds for the construction of the project. One thing that I would note , is that the numbers that everyt hing is based on , were estimates that were done by our consultants last September and there have been !iUbstantial cost increases in construction during this time frame so we won 't know until we :.,O to bid where the dollars are really going to fall. We also know, from our experience with COOT . that the fact that they do the IGA doesn 't mean that they released us to advertise the project. From this stage when we were dealing with the Broadway medians, it took us almost two years before they actually funded the project. So , we are hopeful , however, that we gel this IGA, that we get this project bid and that we are able to construc t It th is next winter when the river is low ... so this bridge would be available to the Golf Course and the folks using the Mar ;, r:arter Greenway . next spring So if you have any questions , Da ve would be ... I am su re ... an xi ous to answe m. Council Member Penn said is the roe, ct-about going to be included in th is bridge project? Mr. Henderson sa id yes it will . The round-about will merge the golfers and the trail users ... slow them down . Mayor Wood ward ask ed if there were any other quest ions . Council Member Oak le y said I do have a comment. I hope that. If we get this passed , that with the little luck we have had on putting some pressure on the Department of Transportation to move forward on other projects , maybe we can get th is one moving faster. COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED , TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1', (a) (I) -COUNCIL BILL NO . 28. COUNCIL BILL NO . 28 , INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY • A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHO RIZING "CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 " TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT ()F TRANSPORTATION (COOT) AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO THAT PE:RTAINS TO Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 8 CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE OVER THE PLATTE RIVER AT OXFORD AVENUE AT THE ENGLEWOOD GOLF COURSE . Ma yor Woodward asked if there was any discuss ion . Mayor Woodward said I jus t want to ma ke a comment. We appl ied for a grant for this bridge , and for the nex t one coming up on the Agenda for $250 .000 .00, through the Arapahoe County Open Space and we will be awarded that grant next week . So , th is is a situation where we have really leveraged the money that the City of Englewood is spend ing . It is tak ing a long time , and as Wayne has mentioned ... and I know Wayne brought it up early on in the year to DRCOG ... about the problems that we were having with COOT and I think other communities piped in at th at time and hopefully some action was taken . But , I th ink this is wonderful for the trail down there and for the Golf Course and for safety . So , I am strongly in support of this , Mayor Woodward asked if there was an y othe r comment. There was none . Vote results : Mot ion ca rried . Ayes : Counc il Members Penn , Mccaslin , Moore , Woodward, Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley Na ys : None (ii) Public Works Director Kahm presented a recommendation to adopt a bill for an • ordinance authorizi ng Contract Amendment No . 1 to the existi ng Intergovernmental Agreement wi th the Colorado Department of Transportation for the construction of the bridge over the Platte River at Dartmouth Avenue . He said th is particular br idge amendment to the IGA is identical, basically, to the Oxford project, it is just a different bridge , The numbers are diffe "ent. The original IGA from 2006 wa s $73,000 .00 Federal funds • for design . Again , we des igned it and were ready to go last fall , 1 his amendment would add an add it;onal $362 ,000 .00 in Federal funds for construction . I was Just looking at Dave's details here , and the fact is, the two projects are very similar in cost. So, it appears to me that t~,e Dartmouth project has a total cost of $843 ,000 .00 and the Oxford bridge is $851 ,000 .00 ... so they are very •ilar , The big gest difference in Federal funding has to do with ... in order for us to get the Dartmouth projec t... •. e had to overmatch . We had to more than match what the normal 80/20 is . So , that is how we were able to leverage that project. We are on the same schedule and we are hoping these will run at the same ti me and will be constructed next winter. That would be a good addit ion at Dartmo ••t h, as right now the Little Dry Creek Trail comes down and folks have to share the bridge wilh the Dartm c ' affic .,, this will get them across to the Mary Carter Greenway without that conflict. Both are exciting projects . And as you mentioned , we are aware of the $250 ,000 .00 grant from Open Space and so we are very confident that with that grant. wit h what we already have ... right now these projects are fully funded with the funds that are available ... so we are co mfortable that there is enough money in that grant to absorb whatever construction increases that we will see . Mayor Woodward said this pa rticular one has anoth er grant that is with it ... which is coming from the South Platte Work ing Group thro ugh legacy funds from GOCO , which is ei the r $2 5,000 .00 or S50 ,000 .00 . I know th is is a real amenity to this City and that right now you have to lift your bike up , get on to Dartmouth , rid e 11 on a very narrow sidewalk wit h traffi c going by you and so I think this is a real amenity to the river co rridor. COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY MOVED , AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (a) (Ii) -COUNCIL BILL NO . 29 . COUNCIL BILL NO . 29 , INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHO RIZING "CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 " TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BElWF.E N THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TR;.:JSPORTATION (CDOT) AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO THAT PERTAINS TO CONSTRUC TION OF A BRIDGE OVER THE PLATTE RIVER AT DARTMOUTH AVENUE . Mayor Woodward asked if there was any furth er discussion . There was none . • • • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 9 Vote results: Mot ion carried . Ayes: Council Members Penn , Mccaslin, Moore, Noodward, Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley Na ys: None Director Kahm said before I step down , I really do want to recognize Dave Henderson's efforts on these projects because he has been the one that has be en working with all of our Federal aid programs and i: .as been a long several years getting the se proj ects through , getting the fund ing in place an d accomplishing these th ings. Many cities of our size has given up even going for these grants , because it takes so much eff~rt to get to the tail -e nd but through Dave's efforts . I think we are there . Thank you . Mayor Woodward and others said thanks [,: ·e. There was applause. (iii) Deputy City Manage •·laherty presented a recommendation to adopt a bill for an ord inance amending Title 7. Chapter 1-A of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, entitled "Dogs and Cats.· He sa id we are requesting tonight, on behalf of the City Manager's Office. as well as the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee and the Citiz ens Task Force , approval of an ord inance amending Title 7, Chapter 1-A of the Code. You h~ve heard already from three of the members of the Tas k Force tonight and one member. .. the Chair of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee. Before you , in your packet, you have the background information. The history on th i!' ordinance actually goes back to November of 2005, when this issue first came before City Council . In early 2006, Council referred study of the amendment of this ordinance to the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee. They met through April , m ,Je a preliminary recommendation to City Council and after discussions with City Council, add itional work was re qu ested . The Code Enforcement Advisory Committee came back late in 2006 with a recommendation , which turned into a proposed ordinance that went before Council in January of 2007 . There ,,,as a Public Hearing held in early February of 2007, which was mentioned tonight by a couple of membert of the Task Force. After many questions and concerns expressed during that Public Hearing , City Council determinP.d an approach to take to clean up some of the issues, which was to appoint a C itizens Task Force . A seven mer11ber Task Force was appointed that included animal professionals , trainers , animal behaviorists . a mail carrier , as well as other an imal advocates and general citizens . That Task Force worked diligently for a number of months on tha project. Late last year, they came back to City Council with a recommended ord inance. Council had some add itional comments at that time . The City Attorney , early th is year. added some additional recommendations. The Task Force got back together with the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee to review and to make final changes, wh ic h were presented to Council in lat e May. So , here we are , almost two and a half years later, wit h an ord inance that we bel ieve is one that Council can look favorably upon . Just to give you a little bit of background on the ordinance ... and it was amended extensively, starting with the definitions. The Task Force also recomnended classifi cat ior> of animals in two categories: an at-risk animal and a dangerous anima l. .. with criteria for each of those and also an oppcrtunity for de-classification from either of th ose categories. with certain restrictions and requ irements. particularly on those of the dangerous dog . Th is ordinance also provides for a number of changes and adrlitions to the Animal Cruelty and Neglect provisions of the ordinance and finally deals with the clarification of criteria rela ted to Destruction of Animals, what the causes of that would be , which are, in this f articular ordinance , fa irly seve re , as well as an opportunity for an owner of an animal to be heard at a hear ing , prior to destru cti on , and to be allowed to bring witnesses and evi dence forward . So, if there are any questio ns , I will be happy to answer those . Ma yor W oodward asked if there were any questions. COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE SECONDED , TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (a) (Ill) -COUNCIL BILL NO. 30 . • COUNCIL BILL NO. 30 , INTRO DUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTE R 1A, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNI CIPAL CO DE 2000 , ENTITLEn "DOGS AND CATS". Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 10 Council Member Moore said I would like to make a friendly amendment to correct the typo's identifie d by Mr Hoag land . City Attorney Brotzm,m sa id them · lion now incl udes the amendments reg ard ing the typo's iden ; •d by Mr. Hoagland . Mayor Woodward sa id there is one more, under number 9, I think , wlIere you changed in jury , I th ink it should read ·c;rcumstances as may be expected to cause a suffering injury". Just adding the word ·a· wou "the other thing that ! would add to that. Council Member Wilson sa id do they mean ·suffering , injury or ocath"? It is not ·a·. I don't th ink , I th ink it wculd just be in stead of "debility" it would be "injury·. Mr. Woodward said okay . Mayor Woodward asked if the re were any other comments or remarks on this . • Coun ci l Member Mo c,e said I would like to make a motion to amend the proposed ord1 n nee an~ lhe language that I am proposing is attached to the back . I would like to address the concerns. The p 1pc :ed .I1.arnative would allow a responsible dog owner to work with his dogs , on his private property , without a lea sh . It would require the dog be under control and it would require the owner's presence and it would require the animal to stay on the owner's property . My be li ef that th is freedom facil itates the train ing of dogs , as that is a means that I have certa inly emi:!oyed with my own dogs . The proposal I am making recognizes the balance that we always face between the concerns of the individuals and the concerns of the citizens ... the balance we have io do between private property righls and the public rights . In the name of safe~/. we cannot stop people from driving , because a few people speed . I go bac~ to even yesterday. I ,,as taking two of my dogs for a ride , I have an alley entrance driveway, working with my youngest. I let the dogs out of the gara e to go get in the car. I would technically be in violation of this ordinance, if it was In place. I refuse to accept that I was acting inap propriately on my private property with my dogs unoer control. Thal is a techn ique that I need to use ... to help my dogs • become better ci tizer,s , so to spea k. I believe that we have to respect , again , in all of our la w making process , code enforcement, speed limits and ~verythi,1 g, there is always a balance between privzte Individual rights , private property rights versu , the publ ic good . We have come a long way with this ordinance. We have addressed the concerns ra ised by the mall carriers. As it is today , our ordinance does not requ ire the dog be al all controlled , as long as it is on private prop~rty . The ordir•an"es were , s,en with my amendm ent , now adds to those requi rements .. _ th e owner's presence and the owner's co,,trol of t1 1e animal . These are drastic improvements. And I would rather focus the enforcement on the irre~~onsible dog owners and I do not think it is right...this is one if the issues that is definitely easy for me to pe rsonalize ... l do not believe it Is right to take away the current treedom I have in this respect. So , I am a•king the Council to consider modifying the running- at-large definition , as has been worked out and attached to tn e back , before we pass the full dangerous dog ordinance . Mayor Woodwa rd sa id John would you like to read that to us? Council Member Moore sa id I would be happy to. I would like to amend th e definition of: Dog or Cat stray and /or runn ing at large (pri vat e property): to reaL.o · not physi ca lly restra ined er under reasonable control by a capab le pe rson and the perso n must be physically preser.t with the dog or cat while on that person's premises . Not physica lly restrained or under reasonable control In tnat person 's vehicle ;n ;; manner that preve nts the ani mal from leaving veh ic le or reachi ng any public areas : COUNCIL "1EMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL ME~:OilER OAKLEY SECONDED, TO AMEND COU "1Clt tllLL NO. 30, BY AMENCING THE DEFINITION OF : DOG, OR CAT, STRAY AND/OR RUNNING AT LAR~ ; (PRIVATE PROPERTY): TO READ "NOT PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED OR UNDER REASOIIABLE CONTROL BY A CAPABLE PERSON AND THE PERSON MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITH THE DOG OR CAT WHILE ON THAT PERSON'S PREMISES . NOT PH '(SICALLY REST~A'i\!ED OR UN DER REASONABLE CONTROL IN THAT PERSON 'S VEHICLE IN A MANNER THAT • PREVENTS THE ANIMAL FROM LEAVING VEHICLE OR REACHING ANY PUBLIC AREAS ." Mayor W oo1ward asked if th ere was an y disc ussion regarding John's amended language. • • • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 11 Council Member Wilso n said I have somelhing . I understand totally where Council Member Moore ,s coming from , but I am st ill concerned about public safety . I would :ike to see , maybe , peo ple get one cnance and if they bro ke that law , then immediately, their dog would have to be telhered or on a chain . but there would n't be any more than one chance . ! don 'I know if that can be written in. I lhink ii would be a comprom ise . Bui to let peopl< know how serious th is is and that they got the ir on e chance , if that was broken then that was ii for them . I worry about the letter carriers . I understand where they are co ming from. I know the Task Force has been great and worked v,ry hard a,,d diligently. I kno w that their only concern is with the safety of people and dogs to make sure that the, don 't ran across the street and get hurt. I don 't know if a comprom ise can be reached on this. but I am certainly open to hearing one . Council Member Moore s.,id ii I may make a comment to that , currently if I have the ord inance right , at-large : an an imal ~ecomes at-risk if t is repeatedly at-l arg e. So , separate from my issue ... I would suggest that your concerr is a br.:,ader issu,, than my particular amendment. Any time that a dog runs at-large, whether we have this amendment or not , as of now , the ordinance says repeatedly , there is no one time llmitation ... repeatedly would need to be defined . So , to me you are propos ing a general change , that I have no problem cons idering . It would be an issue whether we had th is proposed amendment or not. Ms . Wilson said okay . Council Member Oakley sa i<1 I guess t would like to explain my second . Under normal conditions , I wouldn 't second a motion like this , because I too appreciate the Tas k Force work and their concerns and all of that , but as long as we all~w citizens to take dogs to certain parks and turn them loose , I think a property owner should have the same ngnt in his front yard . That is my reasoning . Council Member Mccaslin said I did an experiment th is weekend . I was working in the yard and I have a little Bi cho n. He is white and looks like a little toy poodle . but it is a Bichon . So . I arn cul working in the yard and he is just sitting t~ ,re under the shade tree and I said , Max come here , and he responded . My problem is that a little old lady , j ,st as somebo~y said , was walking down the street and he came up to her . after walking through the mud and jumped on her. I thought , oh my G.:,d , what do I say to this lady? t apolog ized and she is all muddy . I talked to Council Member Moore about this and I am really torn, because I understand the freedom . I love my dog out with me . but I ca nnot guarantee 100~'. control. I mean , maybe one strike against me , then I would tether him . I guess It wo1 •:d be rr,y fault , then maybe I should take the responsibility to tether the dog . So maybe I would leave that up to the owner who says , no I'm under control. but if that dog happens to bite someone and they don 't have the liabil ity insurance , or whatever , then the vict im is held responsible for all the med ical bill s. So , I'm going back and forth on th is one , to be honest with yo,. Council Member Jefferson sai d I also kind of struggled with th is one , but I will stand opposed to this propos,.d amendment. I do believe that the burden on the privale p,opsrty is not that great. All you have to do is either tether the dog or build a fence . And that th e burden on l~e ,,olic is greater when they perceive a threat to their safety er ether threats . So, I will stand opposed in the interest of public safety , because I believe that the burden on the public safety is higher than the potentia l burden on the private property owner . I also believe that when one goes to a doggy park or an off-leash park you are assum ing some risk . So the folks that are there are assum ing some level of risk and the person walkinq down the street is not assuming any level of risk . They are not assuming that risk , because they are not go ing to somewhere where they think dogs should be allowed to run around . So , with that comment , I will stand opposed in the interest of public safety . Council Member Penn said I like the idea of reasonabl e control . t have two dogs , one will go in the front yard and the other one will never see th e front yard , because I will never conl ,ol him . so I th ink the reasonab le part is very important. There Is no way , I mean my one dog would go, he would chase after a leaf or someth ing . I think that is a huge part of it. .. rea sonabl e ccatrol and I think you have to look at that also . Mayor Woodward sa id I alsu stand opposed and do support the Task Force findings . I think the postal workers had brought this up at the beginning . And in talking to my own postal carrier today , she had ment io ned th at th e dogs that may be in the ir own yards , are the ones that could be the biagest risk to the postal carrier. I do believe that dogs are an imals with instincts and that if a squirrel goes by , a cat goe s by , something like that goes by and they are going to act on their ins tincts prior to acting . or thinking or doing what they are be ing tra ined to do . So , I op pose th is also . Englewood City Cou11cil June 2, 2008 Page 12 Mayor Woodward asked if th ere was any oth er discussion . Coun cil Member Moore ,: lid just a couple of commen ts I'll make to Council Member Jeffers on . Your do g park analogy means that neighbors that live near an off-leash park don 't have the right to walk the perimete r of the par k either, not rights . but they shoul d understand that that park is off limits to the m. Th is is one reason why you should do all fen ce~ in dog parl<s and you haven 't done that. So , to turn around and tel l our citize ns who live near the parks that have any off-leash privileges tha t... well if yo u don 't like it , stay away from even th e perime ter of the park ... I find difficult. Again I go back ... Mayor Woodwa rd ... we let children play in the yard . One of the :arge motivations of the mail carriers Is one of my neighbors . Th is is ki nd of th e irony of this . I kind of laugh as ... even at more risk th an the ind ividual that leaves his dog unattended ir, his front yard , is the ne ighbors the re that let the ir ~Id s play in the street. II is a far bigger safety hazard . In terms of children 's instincts , they are far more likely 10 get into the street , those parents have a respons ibility for those kids safety . I am by no means advocat ing that I have any less responsibility , if anyth ing , I have more respons ibility , If I am go in g to use these opportunities to have my dog off leash . Again , I envision , the way I use it. that it is a limited training tool. And anyway , I would prefer tn retain that righ! to do so. I'm done . Mayor Woodward sa,c .,,at is the one part, not the only part , that I have fear about and that is ... train ing tool...an open area with a train ing tool infers that you are train ing , in that you do not have total control or you may not have . And I th ink, you John , pr0b ably do have control, t:ut I think mo st peopl e, and I tend to believe most people , think they ma y have co11trol or verbal car •, ol. .. and they don 't. And that is my personal opinion . Mayor Woodward asked if ~.1-::re we re any other comments . Council Me:-n ber Oakley sa id then we are saying that the people who take the ir dogs to an off-leash par k do in fact have control? Council Member Jefferson said not necessa rily. Council Member Mc caslin sa id I agre a . Counc il Member Mccaslin said in fact somebody said they had a picnic the other day a% the dogs were co ming over and gett ing the sandwiches 11nd I think a re spons ible owner would say no , stay away f,om the food . Of course. how do yo u keep a dog away from food ? Council Mem ber Jefferson said if you are havi ng that picn ic at an off-leash park , you know . I guess that would be my point that .... Counc il Memb•,r Oakley said but Joe , half the people that come there don 't even know that :~,t is an off-l eas h park . They co:ne there because it is a par k. Mr. Mccaslin said that is right. Council Me ,;,~r Jefferso n sa id well pe rt1aps we need better signage . Mayor Wood ward said it is a people park with off-leash rights . Council r.:em ber Jefferson sa id I agree . The prima ry funct io n is for the use and enjoyment of people ... l agree but you know , we have also allo wed for dcgs to be off-leash in those areas and I th ink we are getti ng outside the scope of what Is before us here . Counc il Mem be r Oakley sa id what we are say ing is the pe rson who lives nex t to an oH-leash par k canno t have their dog ·n lh eir fro nt yard under voice command, but they can step across the ir back fen ce and turn it loose . That is what we are saying . Cou nc il Me mber Jefferson said correct , prov ided yo u are with the dog and ha ve a leash , th at ,s l1ow th e law reads , Isn't that correct ? Co uncil Member Moore said yo u need the leas h while you are on your property , but on ce you yet across the street , you can take the leash off. Mr. Jefferson sa id yes , but you have to have a leas h with you while you are with the dog . Mr. Moore sa id y,.;, keep the leash on unlil you get off the property . Mr. Jefferson said I unde ro tand the point, the po int is we ll 'aken . And that is my comment to Counc il Member Moore ... the po int is well taken . It doesn't change how I feel. Ms. Wilson said we don 't have ma il carri ers at the park. Mr . Jeffe rs on sa id good po int. Coun ci l Member Oakley sa id we havP kids at th e pa rk . Council Member Oakley said we could just ~ee p going back and forth with this . • • • • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 13 Council Member Jefferson said if we would like lo re-eva1uale our laws on off-leash parks lhen that is a tot ally separate issue . Council Member Oakley sa id I am nol even say ing that. Don 't eve n start that. Council Member Mccaslin said we were here until 12 : 15 one nigh! aboul off-leash park . Coun ci l Member Wilson sa id lhal whole thing was intended for pub lic safety and that has lo be the number one con cern . Council Member Moore said I would agree with that. Thal is absolutely the purpose or this ordinance ... publ ic safety . But everything we do has to balance lhe in div idual rights as well. I do not wanl to be characterized ... this amendment represents a lot or work , a lot or work that I have put into this as well , in the name or public safety. I am trying ... rrom my perspect ive , we just can 't go too far In violating individual rights . Council Member Jefferson said like yo u said , that balancing act is importanl...l guess we have a different tipping scale for all of us . I th ink I am ready to vote . t.layorWoodward said we are voling on the amendment...John 's amendment. Yes is to approve John 's amendment and replace lhe language . Council Member Mccaslin said can I ask one more quest ion? Currently, I can have my dog in the front yard without a leash? Council Member Moore said and you don 't even nee d to be present. Where it stands at this moment... the law in effect right now , is you don 't, the dog can be in the front yard right now while you are here doing business . • Mayor Woodward said is there anything else Bob? Council lllember Mccaslin said no . Mayor Woodward called for the vote on the amendment. Vote results : Ayes : Council Members Mccaslin , Moore , Oakley Nays: Co uncil Members Penn , Woodward , Jefferson , Wilson , Motion defeated . COUNCIL MEMBF.R JEFFERSON MOVEO , AND COUNCIL. MEMBER MOOR i:' SECONDED , TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (a) (Ill) • COUII CIL BILL NO . 30, WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. {Clerk 's note : Fr iendly Amendments : On .fage 6 tethering , "ll>e thi s section ", on page 8 "Rabi~s vaccination requ ired " and on page 9, paragraph 6, 3 line , '·deb ility" should be "i njury ".{ Mayor Woodward asked if there were any comments . Counci l Member Moore said I would like to !hank the Task Fo rce for all the ir long efforts . We started off dealing wil~ some major problems and I just cannot believe lhe citizen in put on lhis process . I am very respectful and very apprec iat ive of the wor l<. What Council has before thern ton ight , is so much better because of citizen involvement. Because or that , ii Is with great pain thal I will say thal I car.not vote for th is tonight, purely because it oversteps a fundamental principle or mine , but I hope the Task Force realizes I really value everyth ing that you have done . I recogniz e this process is one or comprom ise , but at some point there is a belief system that can 't be ignored and I hope you respect my need to vote no on this proposal . Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other commen ts • Council Member Oakley said while I think that by doing lhis anci deny ing John 's motion , we are setting a do uble standard , I do support lhe hard work that has gone into th is and I will suppo rt it. Englewood City Council Ju r e 2, 2008 Pag e 14 May or Woodw ard said I would like to state too , to the Task Force and to the Code Enforc emen t Advisory Committee , my apprecia tio n for all the work th at you have don e. I know that I did the original Council Request in Nove mb er of 2005 regarding this and it went on a long , long lime . Th e Task Force , which has been in place , I think 13 months now ... l believe I told Coun cil , a little better than a year ago that I thought...oh , it will probably take them three meet ings to work it out. Wha l you hav e come up wi th , I thi nk, is a rea lly , really fine ordinance and ii really improves wha t we currently have , so my kudos to all of you who have worked on this . Counc il Member Wilson said I ju:st have one co mme ri t. I know that we are comme nd ing the work don e on the Tas k Force 's part , the volunteers a,,~ !he Code Enfor cement Advisory Comm ittee , but also Mike Flahe rty , the Deputy City Manager, has put a tre me ndocs amoun t Jf wo rk in to th is and , I am su re , a lot of patience . So, I want to tell yo u thank you . May •• Wood wa rd called fo r !he vote . Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes : Council Members Pe nn , Mccaslin , Woodward , Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley Nays : Council Me mber Moore (b) Approval of Ord inan ce s on Second Readi ng (i) Council Bill No . 23 authorizing the Denv er Sem inary/Kent Place Planned Un it Developm en t (PUD ), Amendment !'l o. 2, site plae adj usments was co ns idered . Mayo r Woodwa rd said this inclu des an amendment for-.indition number 5 that was brought forward by the developer at our previous Council meetin g. City Attorney Brotzman said no , you have what was passe d on first read ing . Currently on Ms . Langon 's Council Commun ication, she has an additional cond ition number 5 wh ich the developer proposed . That is not incorporated in the Ord inance at th is time . What yo u have went on fir st read in g and what was pub li shed . Coo nc il Member Moore sa id what I will sugg es t Is , I will be happy to make a motion to app rove 11 (b) (i). If I can get a second on ii , I will a motion to amend ii to incorporate that language and then we can go into the discussion if that works fo r Council . COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED , AND COUNCIL MEMBER OAKL I:/ SECONDED , TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (b) (I)· COUNCIL BILL NO . 23 ON SECOND READING . CO UN CIL BIL L NO . 23, INTRODUC ED BY COUNC:IL MEMBER MOORE AN ORDIN ANCE AU TH ORIZIN G THE DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P UD ) AMENDMEN T NO . 2. COUNC IL MEMBER ll!OO RE MOVEO , AND COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY SECONDED , TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL NO . 1.l BY INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE INTO THE ORDINANCE : ADDING CONDITION NUMBER 5: "WITHIN A.~Y DESIGNATED BUILDING ENV E'-OPE PERMITTING RESIDENTIAL TOWERS, THE TOTAL FLOORPLATE OF TOWERS BUILT SHAL L NOT EXCEED 50 % OF THE ENVROPE AREA. TOTAL TOWER FLOORPLATE SHALL BE CALCULATE BY SUMMING nlE AREA OF THE TYPICAL TOWER FLOOR FOR EACH TOWER CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE ENVELOPE . THE TYPICAL TOWER FLOOR SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD DEVF.LOPMENT • • REVIEW l EAM. PENTHOUSE , COMMON AMENITY OR GROUND FLOORS SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM • THE DETERMINATION ." • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 15 Council Member Moore said I will note that with this amendment , if we agree to the amendm ent to the PUD , it will lake the PUD back to first reading , so we will still need to do a second read ing of the revised pac kage two weeks out. Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion to this amendment. There was none . Veta results: Motion carried . Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin, Moore , Woodward , Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley Nays : Non e Mayor Woodward sa id so now we are go ing back to the or iginal motion . At this point I am going to ask the attorney , Dan Brotzman , to clarify exactly what we are voting on l,ere , what we are looking at in this ordinance . City Attorney Dan Brotzman said what you actually have is an original ordinance that has been amended once . You now have an ord inance that provides for envelopes . You have the opportunity to either approve that, as amended ... you can add further conditions or you can deny it. Now you have to understand that you have approved this document twice . That means if you vote this down, or if for some reason the developer does not accept the conditions , he may withdraw his appl ication and go back to Amendment No . 1. If you deny th is, it goes back to Amendment No . 1. You are not denying the project as a whole , you are just simply denying the envelopes and the new use of hotel that has been proposed . Mayor Woodward said thank you . No'N let's open it up for discussion . • Council Member Mccaslin said can you tell me how many neighborhood meetings Continuum he ld .. as far as attendance and so forth ... is there any record of that? Mayor Woodward said , as I recall , in our packet there was information on a neighborhood meeting .. with a list of signatu re s, a number of pages long , of people attending that meeting ... that was within 500 feet of the property line of the developmen :. Mr. Mccaslin said there was only one meeting for that? City Attorney Brotzman said that is a question that does not require reopening a Public Hearing ... staff, if they know, can answer that. Mr. Mccaslin said okay . City Attorney said the fine line you are walking ... you can 't take ne w testimony here . Bui , the things that are part of the public re cord , you can certainly accept. Mr. Mccaslin said I can gather information? Mr. Brotzman said yes . Mr. Mccasl in sa id that is what I am trying to do . Senior Planner Langon sa id the developer was required to conduct a neighborhood meeting , with nntic~ to all pro perty owners within a 500 foot rad ius of the property line . That was a pre-application meeting . Tha( is the only required meeting . The appli ca nt may have had smaller , ind ividual meetings with var ious organizations such as Kent Villa ge or othe r neighbors to the north and I don 't have full knowledge of that. I sus pect they have had some types of meetings th ,,,•~h . Cour.,;i l Member Moore sa id plus two Pub li c Hearings ... one with Plann ing and Zon ing and one with Counc il. Council ,~ember Oakley sa id that did happen two times ... the public meetings with Plann ing and Zoning or did it happen just once? Mayor Woodward said I bel ieve it happened twice . Mr. Oakley said It happened twice , because of the first and second one . Mayor Woodward said it was extended . • Ms . Lang on said correct , at the first Public Hearing the Public Hearing was merely opened . so that we wouldn 't have to re-publish or re-post. Then second meet ing was the actual Pub lic He aring . Council Member Mcore sa id and to be clear , Tricia Is just speak ing wilt> resp ect to Amendment 2. Am endm ent 1 and the original had all kind s of ... Mr . Oakley sa id ii had Its own process . Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Pa;;• 16 Council Member Penn said Dan , are we allowed to ask how long each one of lhese houses are in the shadowing ? City Attorney Brotzman sa id you should have that information from the Publ ic Hear ing . You are going to have lo get that informalion from what they presented . Tricia can 't give you new informalion on lhal. Mr Penn said thank you . Council Membe r Moore said for Dan , in terms of process , a suggestion was made that we hall the process temporarily to allow more of the citizens to gel involved who were not invo lved previously . Whal options are even available to us , given the formal process that we have to go through for PU D's. Do we have a choice to add any delays? Mr . Brotzman said you can move to table ii. but again , you are go ing back to Amendment No . 1, ii the developer so chooses and wants to move forward wilh Amendmenl No . 1 while there is some olher process . Council Member Moore said would the tabling option provide an opportunity to create a second Publ ic Hearing ? Mr. Brotzman sa id if )OU so choose , that is an option . Council Member Moore said in conlrast , what It probably is not an option , is to hold anything less formal than another Public Hearing at this po int , right? Mr. Brotzman sa id correct , because you are going to have I~ gel lhe informalion back to you , so you need lo do that in a publ ic hearing . Council Member Moore sa id righl, jusl so we know the opt ions . Council Member Oakley said Dan , if we were to do thal, if they wenl back to the first one, then they wo uld be • vacating the 50% envelope that they had agrae d to do . Is that correct? • Mr. Brotzman said if you go back , yes . Mr . Oak ley said that's what I mean , we would be los ing thal. Mr. Brotzman said correct. Mayor Woodward said as part of our packet this lime , I requested that we have the shadow comparison for the winter sol stice at the three sifferent times of the day ... 9 a.m., noon and 3 p.m. Under Amendment No . 2, what shows there is the full envelope , which is absolutely the absolute , it is beyond the worst case, because it couldn't happen . Because onl1• 50% of that enve lope can be fille d. Courcil Membe r Oa kle y said under this recent agreement? Mayor Woodward said that is correct. Mayor Woodward said , just eyeballing th is, if you cut th is in half ... even ,eaving ii. .. it wasn 't that much different than tne or iginal PUD ~r Amendment 1. So , in Amendm ent 2, allhough I see some of the shadowing, obviously on Floyd Pi ece , Floyd Avenue ... in the worst case scenario , it gets up to the Avenue at 9 :00 a.m. and at noon it's on the ba ck side , I don 't think it even gets onto Floyd Place . I have been over u,ere and driven up and down Floyd Place and Floyd Avenue , numerous times . It is summer time and I see a lot of very healthy , large trees thal certainly have the ir leaves on them now and look great Bu t I also see large fur trees and spruce ... thal sort of th ing ... and having two large trees like thal in my own yard , I know that creates shadowing . Having a two- story house righl next to me , I know •·•hal lhat shadowing is like when it is 10 feel away . I don 't see that the shadowing with Amendment 2, as shown on these dr~wings , are worse than the original PUD . And I know there were many ne ig hborhood meetings for Amendment 1. I personal!:· do not see where the major problems are tnere . I also know there were comments regarding property values decreas ing and , perso nally I just have a hard time believing that any property values are go ing to decrease due to this develo pment. In fact I believe the exact opposite will happen . Council Member Oakley said , along the same lines as tne shadowing ... if we set the bar. in th is case , at lhat level. .. where lhe shadowing of any developments ca nnol affect the surrounding ne ighborhoods ... the bu ildings • like the apartmenl house go ing in at Penn and 285 ... would not be possible. because that is going to shade . Swed ish is go ing to shade . Even if they had developed the Bates stalion ... anyth ing higher than two stories , would shade the properties to the west . Even though I know lhis has a pe rsonal impact on people , a lot of us have experienced lhese kinds of impacts . As Jim explai ned , the two-story house next to him , lhe large • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 17 evergreen tree s ... every year trees grow up and create shade and we are not requ iring those property owners 10 cul the ir trees down ... because it just isn 't a practical thing to do . I am concerned about future devel opment in the City and their revenues that we need so badly . If developers know that they are go ir,g to run into these restrictions here , we are going to have a hard lime attracting future development. Although it is unfortun ate , I feel that we were elected by 33 ,000 people and we have to go with what is best for the majority . Council Mereber Moore sai•j I would like to offer some comments . Again , th ere are so many th ings lo cons ider here , but first of all we can 't lose sight of the fact that Continuum is a property owner In Englewo-,d as well , and they have rig hts . Th e rights for he ight were already with that land . Whether it is good law or bad law , it was existing . And the deve!o pe ; working on the orig inal PUD , asked for changes , but the starting point incl uded rights that they already had to go much , much higher than they have proposed. From my perspective through this process , it has been a tremendous effort betw een the developer , whether it is the current one or tt Ie prior one , and what I have pers onally witnessed is tremendous involvement with the immed iate ne ighborhoods north and west of the property , to reach an agreement on a oave lopment that is better than what the alternatives will be . So , I voted for the original PUD , I voted for Amendment 1. I'll even challenge Wayne 's comreent. I was particularly compelled to listen to the vo ices of my District and I thi nk most of th e prQperty owners there feel this development is better than an extension of Kimberly Woods , which, an apartment deveiopment is the most likely alternative or, at least. a key potentia l alternative that coul d have been pursued . And I think Wayne you mentioned this ... the flexibility to developers . It is not right for us to go to Amendment 2, when we have been asked fo1 flexib ility that honors the existing agreements ... an d try to extract blood . It is unfri endly to the development commun ity . We have had the suggestion that we have all the leverage here ... that we should do what we want. There is another balance that we have to respect. We need to be a comrr unity that Is friendly to the developers as we ll . We cannot sacrifice the homeowners either . I am not In the shadow , but th is is my ne igh borhood as we ll. The two is sues in front of us tonigh t. .. th e dog ordinance and this ... have represented two of the best efforts I've seen in my six plus years on Council. .. grass co ts efforts to reach a solution . And I say • that , desp ite the fact that I voted against the dangerous dog ordinance . For me the question is ... is Amendment 2 comprom ising the Agreement that already '• with the neighborhood . And I have yet to feel that it does . f feel the developer offered a nice compromise, 11ou<lng sure ... be ing clear ... that they are not going to build the • entire envelope . I resent the Implication that we have not been doin g our jobs . Th is process has had comm unity Involvement from the beginning , it has had extensive re vi ew th ro ugh Planning and Zoning, it has had extens ive rev iew through Counci l...so it ve ry tough for me ... I am not hearing complaints that are truly re lated to Amendment 2, as opposed to the project as a whole . We have already been through the com mun ity process , ne gotiating to get the project that we have . Th at is how I am analyzing it. I am looking at. .. is Amendment 2 break in g th e agreemen t...are we willing to grant the fle xi bility they are asking fo r, to just execute what , I believe , was the intent with Amendm ent 1? Council Member Oakley said the second th ing I might add to that is we are talk ing about something that is not even prc'."Osed to be built in the first phase . So , even if it goes through , it is not going to be built in the fi r ;t phase . Who even knows if the second phase will even take place. We are focusing on some th ing that we are not even sure is go ing to happen . Council Member Moore said in fa irness to the ques1ion , we would be granting that right today . Counci : Member Oakley sa id that is correct. Council Member Moore said I will throw th is ou t... the discomfort , obvious1y have ton ight is the citizens that spoke that don 't feel they were represented . First of all , if we vol~ this down , they j ust go to Amendment 1. I don 't believe it would significantly change that. The only opti on we can offer ... and I don 't know if th is would greatly slow down the devel oper ... I suspect , given that we have been doing this for four years , ,11a t they can handle a couple more weeks . Dan , correct ma if I am wrong ... we could pass it ton ight, as amended , set a public ~earing , based on the first reading , which includes the revision ... and give them one n;ore opportunity to dialogue with the citizens, to make sure the ir vo ices ha ve been heard ... and that wo uld push us to passing it on second readi ng In four weeks? Is that timelino correct? Cou nci l Member Oakley said the only problem I have with tha t...and maybe it is not a problem , don 't get me wrong ... but if Council feels that we negot iated in goo d fa ith , all th ese many years on th is project and we ha ve done the best we ca n for the citizens ... then ... and I don 't know whether yo u would call it false hope or wha t... to Englewood City Council Juae 2, 2008 Page 18 have a second hearing ... I don ·t know what they would say to change our minds and that wou ld just prolong the process and I'm not sure for what r.1ason . Thal may sou nd coldhearted ... I hope ii doesn't. Council Member Jefferson said I agree , ii seems very clear what they are asking us lo do ... and I don 'I know whether hearing it again is going lo necessarily change anybody 's mind . I would generally agree with that statement. Mayor Woodward said I would lend lo agree with Wayne too and I also think lhere are some 11,0.,gs that are involved ... l have heard that the developer is ready lo move forward on the commercial part . The debt se rv ice on that piece of property ... I mean ii is expensive to put anyth ing off a couple of weeks or a month or whate ver th ink in all fa imess ... as I recall there was a neighborhood meet ing in January , there were publ ic hearings in April with Plann ing and Zon ing and public hearings here in May . Council Member Penn said I don 't want to sto p the process and I'm all for all kinds of community bu ild up for 1•s , we defin itely need this . I would urge Conlinuum to continue making contact with these people , so it doesn 't slow the proCP.ss down , keep them involved in the loop so at least maybe they can cont inue to get the ir vo ices heard . Mayor Woodward asked if :here were any other comments . The re were none . COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED , TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 23 ON JUNE 16, 2008. Council Member Moore said I believe the project has been going on long eno ug h that we can afford a two wee k delay . Mayor Woo~-.·,ard asked if there wa s any discussion . Council Member Mccaslin said I go back to the dogs ... how many peopl e we had at the dog thing and you base your decisions on input from ... not only the developers , but the residents and other Council people and where ever else you can draw from to help you make your decisi on . This has been in front of us for quite awhile , and quite fran kly I haven 't heard a lot of opposilion . I do feel sorry for the people that will experience this shadowing effect, I really do ... bul can we really stop the world be ca use ... and I don 't want to sound harsh ... but I have the ch oice ... do I want to stay there or move ? I don 't want to be that callous , so another hearing may give us a different in sight. I don 't have an issue wi th that. Council Member Oakley said I have a quick question . If we vote on John 's motion and ii fails , th en can we make a motion for lhe original on e as ii stands? City Attorney Brotzman said yes . Council Member Moore sa id really I am just offering another amendment that is tacking on the pub lic hearing . We can vote that down and proceed with the sam e ordinance without the publ ic hearing atta ched? City Attorney Brotzman said rig ht. Mr . Moore said okay . Council Member Jefferso n sa id John , do you believe the people who came to speak with us about this proposed amendment would be in favor of ha vi ng an add itional public hea ring? Council Me ml>er Moore said I'm sorry ... wh ich groJp? Mr. Jefferson sai d the folks who ca me and addressed us lo night or eve n the ones in the past. Do you th ink there are people out lhere that would li ke another publ ic hearing? Mr. Moore said I think we die he.ar tonight that lhcy are imploring us to slow down and the only option I see , to give the vo ices one more opportunily lo be heard , is th is approach . At the same lime I will say that I aclually have lo agre e that we have been do ing this a long lime, th is Is ve ry late in the game . I feel we have sol ici ted and had the opportun itie s for those comments , but when there are a group of citizens this upset lhat feel Iha! the ir voice hasn 't been • • heard ... and even if it is a long shot...a two week delay gives us one more opportun ity to he ar their co ncerns . One thing I am hav ing to guess is that two weeks does not hinde r the deve loper si gnificantly , Bui maybe if you want fle xibi lity , this is lh e price you have to pay ... two more weeks for us to make sure we have fully discussed • this . • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Pag e 19 Mayor Woodward sa id if we go with the amendmen t and it comes back in two weeks , the public certainly has the opportun ity , without a public hear ing , to discuss th is again . Council Member Moorf said we won 't have the opportunity to dialogue . Mayor Woodward sa id to dialogue with staff. Mr . Moo re sa id right. The only way we can get everyth ing out is in a public hearing context. Otherwise , we just sit and listen . Mayor Woodward said okay . Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments . Council Member Jefferson said if you think that will be app reciated , I am willing to go ahead and slow up the process ... if you think that will be appreciated by some of the folks in our community and if you think that will lead to an opportunity for change . Council Member Oa kley said shall we vote . Mayor Woodward said yes , we can vote . Vote rOBults : Ayes : Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore , Jefferson, Wilson, Nays : Council Members Woodward , Oakley Motion carried . COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL Mr·~BER OAKLEY SECONDED , TO APPROVE COUNCIL BILL NO . 23 AS AMENDED ANO TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 16, 2008 . Council Member Moore said now we have the whole package including the Public Hearing set for two weeks out and it Incorporates the 50% amendment we approved eartier . • Mayor Woodward said are there any comments . There were none . Vote rOBults : Motion carried . Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin , Moore , Woodward , Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley Nays : None (c) Resolutions and Mot ,o ns (i) Director Gryglewicz presented a recommendation from the Department of Finance and Admin istrative Services to adopt a resolution tran sferring funds from the General Fund to the Long Term Asset Reserve . He said I just want to give you a brief background on th is. The Long Tenm Asset Reserve was originally discussed last September, during the 2008 Budget retreat. Al that time , Council decided to create this reserve which is in the General Fund . It was created with the adoption of Resolution 90 in 2007. Also , i;, 2007 , ouncil passed Resolution 91 , which transferred $1 ,986 ,000 .00 from the Public lniprovement Fund to the General Fund . In 2008 Counci l passed Resolution 34 , moving $499 ,142 .50 from RTD sale proceeds into the Long Term Asset Reserve . As part of the 2008 Budget , Cou ncil had agreed to mtve $1 .5 million from the PIF to the General Fund for what were called "bridge funds ." Due to the improved financia l condition c,f the City , the General Fund did not need the full amount of the bridge funds . Council discussed and then agreed to move $1 million from the General Fund , Unreserved/Undes ignated Fund balance into the Long Tenm Asset Reserve . That is what this resolution proposes . COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED , TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (c) (I)· RESOLUTION NO . 39 , SERIES OF 2008, WITH THE FOLLOWING • AMENDMENTS : IN 6TH WHEREAS , ADDING "MI LLION AFTER $1.5 AN O N THE 8TH WHEREAS, DELETING "FALL" AND ADDING "LEAVING $500,000 IN THE GENERAL FUN D FOR POTENTIAL GOLF COURSE RELATED EXPENDITURES." RESOLUTION NO . 39 , SERIES OF 2C ,'• Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 20 A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING F~,~OS FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED /UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE TO THE LONG TERM ASSET RESERVE (LT AR). Council Member Moore sa id we set th is fund up to capture proceeds from long term Investments as they des ignate them ,,nd use them consciously . Being consc ious and knowledgeable about how we use them . So , since the 2008 r,udget is turni ng out better than we were expecting , th is is providing us with an opportunity to capture the r.oa, ,mount of Golf Course proceeds that we had been using for the Budg et. The one clarification I wanted to bring Is that there was $1 .5 million left that we used for Bridge Funds and we are only transferring one million , because we wish to leave $500 ,000.00 for potential Golf Course related expe nd itures . Council Member Moore said Frank , do you believe the proposed amendments capture my intent , is it acceptable? Director Grygle wlcz said yes , that will work . He sa id I will probably come back to Council with another resolution transferring $500,000.00 from the General Fund to the PIF , if those funds are going to be expended for Golf Course purposes . Council Member Moore said yes , fair enough . City Attorney Brotzman said Frank, the $500,000.00 may not all be <.:apital expenditures . Director Gry~lewlcz said a lot of times we put them In the PIF just so we can look at all those related to a Capital asset , so it might be there , even if it's legal fees or something else , but we can account for it there . Mayor Woodward asked if there was any comm ent or discussion . There was none . Vote results: Motion carried . Ayes : Nays : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin , Mo•xe , Woodward, Jefferson , Wilson , Oakley None (ii) Englewood Mclellan Reservoir Four-dation President Fonda presented a recommendation from the Englewood Mclellan Re ;ervoir Foundation to approve a resolution In support of the TT of Denver lease negotiations . H11 sai d EMRF has negotiated and signed a letter of intent for tth property . You would be supporting us for g,, .. •.i In negotiating the actual lease . In the letter of in ten t, I believe that the minimum annual payments, after they are up and running , would be around $473 ,500.00 a year. This property would be an Infin ity dealership . COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED , AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (c) (II)· RESOLUTION NO . 40 , SERIES OF 2008 , RESOLUTION NO . 40 , SERIES OF 2008 A RES OLU TION SUPPORTING THE' NEGOTIATION OF A LEASE BY THE ENGLEWOOD MCLELLAN RESERVOIR FOUNDATION (EMRF / FOR T.1£ LEASE OF A PORTION OF THE MCL ELLAN PROPERTY TO TT OF DENVER. Vote results: Motion carried . Ayes : Council Members Penn , Mccaslin , Moore , Woodward , Jefferson , w ;ison , Oakley Nays : None 12 . General Dl1cu11lon (a) Mayofs Cho ice • • • • • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 21 (i) Mayor Woodward said please let Sue Carlton-Smith know by lhis Friday if you will be attending the Arapahoe t,ounty Open Space Shareback Grant celebration lunch and distribution of funds . ii will be held Th ursday, June 12th at 11 :30 at the Carson Nature Center. (ii) Mayor Woodward said we do have lhe Tri-Cities meeting this coming Friday , June 6th al Broken Tee Englewood at 7:30 a.m . (iii) Mayor Woodward said I would like to congratula!e Randy on his retirement ar.d his many yea rs of contributions lo the Englewood Schools. His speech at the Englewood High School Graduation was very engaging . So congratulations Randy . There was applause. (b) Council Members' Choice (i) Council Member Penn : 1. He said I had a great golf tour last Friday with Jerrell and his staff. We went through all tr,q holes and one through six arn1 the new Par 3. Hopefully, that keeps moving along 2. He said Jerry Nave took off, but I will get a hold of him an ~ ,o over and sit and bird watch with him a little bit , since I do know Jerry. Hopefully, I can see what is going on over there. 3. He said I want to bring one item up that mayl•e we can look int~ a little further. I know you guy, have probably done th is o•.er and over again. I would like,, look al Code enforcement or Code for houses that have no backyard . Mayor Woodward said so )'OU want to have Code Enforcement look at no access to backyards for .... Council Member Penn said lor some of the things we no not allow or allow as far as parking and trcilers and th inc s like that. (ii 1 Council Member Mccaslin: 1. He said I want lo bring up the boarding house on South Pearl . From what I understand ii has tc u~ :o P & z. Is that correct? City Attorney Brotzman said Iha! is correct, that is th~ next step. Council Memb~r Jefferson said what Is going to P & Z? City Attorney Brotzman sa id this is regard ing the rooming ho•,se/boardrng house proposed amendments. Mayor Woodward said th is is about the moratorium . Council Mec,1ber Mcc aslin said I h2ve hsd some questions from res idents asking if there were any other steps or If that !s ii. City Altomey Brotzman said that is the next step. Council Member M,. :nslin said okay, than k you . An d do you know when that is ... the next P & Z meeting? City Attorney Brotzman said no , but we will le t you know . Mr. Mccaslin said okay. 2. He said I received a call from a person that lives down by Elati and Bales. I went down le check 0 11 a van and it has been sitting on the corner of Elati and Bates since last December. The license plates expirea January of 2008, there were two park ing tickets stuck on tho windsh ield and It wasn't moved until last week. I could no•. be lieve th is . It had blue tape on ii ... it looked like a wedding gift to someone . It had blue t.1pe all wrapper around ii w~h a big X on the back. I just couldn't beli(,ve ii. ii expired in January 2008 and there were two parking tickE ·ls ... why wasn't It moved? Please consider this a Council Request. II is of concern to me, that • if we have misseJ lhis since last Decem ber, what else are we missing ? I was down by my wife's school today and I saw the aoandoned vehicle la dy drive by three times and I thought... there ,s one , there is a person that does that. It was just amazin~. En~lewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 22 3. He said regard ing the CML Conference , I am attending Summer School , but I wou ld like to attend one day . I think ii is $175 .00 . I will pay for my lodging and transportation . I am j est asking for acceptance to attend just that one da y. I talked to Sue and I guess I have to ask for ii tonight. I wi ll go home and double check my schedule and if I can 't attend I will let her k,sow tomorrow . Or should I wait for two weeks? I will already have a late fee . Mayor Woodward sa id are you paying for this our of you discretionary funds , as there aren 't any tra ining funds left? Council Memb er Mccaslin said yes , that is correct. COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED , AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED, TO ALLOW COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN TO USE HIS DISCRETIONARY FUNDS TO ATTEND THE CML CONFERENCE (ONE DAY). Council Member Jefferson said do we need Counc il approval to spend our discretionary funds like that ? City Attorney Brotzman said no , it rs in-State travel. If it was out-of-State travel , you actually do need to talk about that. But to use your di sc retionary funds for in-State travel is not a problem . Mayor Woodward said I had brought forth two conferences and one was out-of-State . City Attorney Brotzman said the handy thing is , if you let us know you are attendin g, we can coordinate if there are a number of Council members attending , to make sure we comply with Open ,ting requirements . We can let everyone know that that many Council members are attending ... that '• ;d idea . The Motion was withdrawn . • (iii) Council Member Moore said I have a follow -up to Randy 's request on the backyard • issue . I believe you asked for Code Enforcement to consider it. I just wanted to ask if it is really a Council issue, because I think Code has looked at it and I think prior Councils chose to leave this as it is. Council Member Jefferson said excuse me for interrupting , but I th ink some of the correspondence from staff asked for some guidance for the pol icy . Council Member Moore said yes , so I just want to rev ise the request as it is proba b'-a Council matter. So we could put it on the list for a future Study Session . Council Member Penn said t•,;,t wo-,.'d be fine . (iv) Council Member Wilson : 1. She said I did tour the Golf Course and ii is phenorranal. I can't be lieve all the work th ey have done . How excited the staff is , how much they are a part of it. They have watched this grow . II is just gorgeous, it really is ... it is phenomena l. I was very impressed . The y are all doing a great, great jo b. 2. She said I met with the School Superintendent and I need to talk to him about ART . He seemed very genuine and very anxious to cooperate with the City . He asked if we needed any help . I told him I would get back to him ... that I'm sure we will need help frorn the schools and we will need to work together. 3. She said I was invited by a Board member to attend the Smart Energy Livi ng Alliance luncheon . So, I will be attending th at and I'll report bac k :o Council on what they have to say ... regarding energy efficient and solar issues . (v) Council Member Jefferson : 1. He sa id, to the citizens who came to address us reg ardi ng Kent Pl ace ... Marjorie , Melanie , Lin da and • Mary ... hopefully by taking the opportunity to slow down the process and allow for additional comments , will help alleviate some of those concerns . • Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 23 2. He sa id, lo Jerry , hopefully we can work through some of lhe problems wilh the bird no ises . I am sympathetic , as I would not like to hear that in my yard . 3. He sa id, to the fo!ks who addressed us regarding the dangerous dogs ... Chris, Cynthia , Lorena , Linda , Laura ... hopefully , by passing the ord inance as recommended will be salisfaclory . 4 . He sa id I too want to get the issue of no backyards onto a Study Sess ion Agenda relatively qu ickly because I know lhere are res idents fac ing enforcement on lhis , so if it is Council's desire to chan ,1 e the policy , then I th ink we need lo do it relatively qu ick ly . Is it true what I just said ... th al we need to act or. 1t q"ickly, because there is pend ing en forcement? City Attorney Brotzman said I would assume there is on -going enforcement on some these houses ... with their trailers and th ings like tha t. when they have no acr.ess lo their backyard . Mayor Woodward said there was a lett er regarding that in our packet. Council Member Jefferson said so that process will continue , .. hile it is ,abled and wailing to net on the Agenda , is that correct? City Attorney Brotzman said no , unless you ask for a moratorium or something else, they will continue enforcing it as it is written , which means they will be in violation if they have a traller or something in the front yard . Council Member Jefferson said I am sympathetic to those people , I do believe that folks that have a property that have th is issue , lhat we need to craft something that will allow them to store some of these personal property items onto the ir yard . I guess I will just throw out the idea that I would be interested in somehow slowing down this enforcement process until we can change the policy ... if that is the consensus of Counc il. guess all I am asking for Is to gel this item on that Agenda quickly . Is that poss ible? • Mayor Woodward said we have a meeting tomorrow . Council Member Jefferson said generally , when you meet...Jim and John ... do you two just dec ide when we hear things? Council Member Moore said you see the standing list... Mr. Jefferson said yes , it is pretty long . Mayor Woodward said it depends on where staff is at, what they have been looking at and trying to prioritize how long something has been there ... where we are at and are we ready to go with ii. Literally, al times , weather is a factor. Council Member Jefferson snio sure ... l would just say to you that I feel this issue has some urgency , if it were to be tabled for too long , I wouid like to move for some sort of moratorium on the enforcement. Council Member Moore said giv e us this week to see if the timeframe is acceptable . If not , we can consider accelerating ii. Counc il Member Jefferson said thank you gentlemen . Mayor Woodward said Joe , do you want to do a Council Request on the birds . Mr. Jefferson sai d yes . City Manager Sears said we will follow-up on that. Coun ci l Member McCaslln said wasn 't that brought up before? Mayor Woodward said that was a differe nt pla ce . Council Member Pe nn said that was an other one over here on Logan . Council Member Jefferson said they had the same th ing ... was it a violation of our Code? Mayor Woodward said no , th is was where somebody was feeding pigeons and the pigeons were coming down into a daycare area . City Manager Sears sa id this is a new request. .13. City Manager's Report (a) City Manager Sears sa id just lo let Council know , we will be sending out the Pipel ine for the Waler and Wastewater Department in the ne xt couple of days . II has good news on the front: the 2008 wale r Englewood City Council June 2, 2008 Page 24 supp ly outlook looks favorab le. By Slalute we wi ll also be requ ired to includ e contam inants and info rmatit n about viola ti ons . Some of these are procedural , but I j~st wanted to let Counc il know this will be i ci ng out to the citize ns. I asked Stu to make a couple of comments . Director Fonda said on this we have to do exactly as it is prescribed by State law. We can 't dev iate from the law . We had d mon itoring violat ion and we had several monitoring violations . These occurred back In 2005 or 2006 . The State was looking through their records and found it and brought this up and we now have to report it. At no time did we go over any of the limits, we were well under them . The write -up on page 4 Indicates what the levels were and what we mea sure con sistently and we are will below them on the contaminants of concern . We have since instituted a double checking procedure to make sure we get all of our monitoring done . Sometimes It gets hectic in the summer and we have to get out and take samples from people 's houses and so forth . We missed the one, by one ,1onth back then . The explanation is on page 4. We missed on copper , lead and fluoride and we are substantially und er on all of those . We have instituted steps since then to make sure this doesn 't happen again . City Manager Sears said we hope this will help Council field any questions regarding this issue . Mayor Woodward sa id Stu , th is is all drink ing water, there is noth ing regarding degradation on that or anyth ing? Director Fonda sa id no . We didn 't take a sample several years ago and now the State is mak ing us pub lish the fac t that we didn 't take the sample in 2005 or 2006 . City Manager Sears said this is really water quality ... it is on the water side , not on the wastewater side . 14 . City Attorney's Report City Attorney Brotzman did not have any matters to bring before Council . 15. Adjournment ODWARD MOVED TO ADJOURN . The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. • • •