HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-7-21 VIRTUAL HYBRID1
STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Virtual Meeting
June 7, 2021
Mayor Bud Starker called the Study Session to order at 6:31 p.m.
This meeting was conducted both as a virtual meeting and hybrid, where some
members of the Council or City staff were physically present at the Municipal building,
and some members of the public attended in person as well. All eight members of
Council were present in Council Chambers for this session.
Mayor Starker welcomed the Council, other elected officials, staff and interested
citizens.
The Mayor also explained the new virtual/hybrid meeting format, how citizens will have
the opportunity to be heard, and the procedures and policies to be followed.
Council members present Zach Urban, Amanda Weaver, Judy Hutchinson, Korey
Stites, Rachel Hultin, Leah Dozeman, Valerie Nosler Beck, Janeece Hoppe.
Also present: City Manager, Patrick Goff; City Clerk, Steve Kirkpatrick; Chief of Police,
Chris Murtha; Director of Administration, Allison Scheck; Director of Community
Development, Ken Johnstone; Director of Planning, Lauren Mikulak; Renewal Wheat
Ridge Executive Director, Steve Art; Assistant to the City Manager, Marianne Schilling;
Sally Tasker, with Butler Snow, Attorneys at Law (Item 1), Mark Reagan, Piper Sandler,
members NYSE, the bond underwriters, (also item 1) other guests and interested
citizens.
Citizen’s Right to Speak
Peter Baccarini, 11065 Linda Vista Dr., Lakewood – Came to comment on the play
equipment, agenda item 2. He came to discuss a half-pipe, approximately 30 feet long
and 30 feet high recently constructed near his own home. Every evening there are
many adults and children using the half-pipe, making a lot of noise with screams,
laughter, and shouting. It disturbs the peace of their home, constantly recurring
throughout the evening. It also denies him and his family privacy in their back yard
when strangers climb to the top of the structure and overlook his property. He urges
Council to adopt building code provisions that limit these kinds of structures and require
permits to construct similar permanent structures.
Kathleen Baccarini, 11065 Linda Vista Dr., Lakewood came to support Peter’s
comments and add more color to their situation. She disclosed that she is a realtor.
Her home is next door to the half-pipe. She was shocked to see such a large, imposing
and intrusive structure looming over her back yard. When she contacted the City, she
was informed that the City does not restrict structures like the 30-foot structure with
landing platforms, a storage area and lighting. Is there no limit on the size of such a
2
structure? If nothing is done, I anticipate we will see more of these structures in Wheat
Ridge. She urged Council to consider some kinds of restrictions on such
Dawn Quaiser 10745 W. 38th Ave. She lives near the same half-pipe structure and is
experiencing the same intrusions as the previous two speakers. She can see the
lighting and hear the noise even in her basement. The distractions annoy her son while
he is working on his school homework. She urges Council to take a hard look at the
need for limits of some kind on such play structures.
Note about Wheat Ridge Speaks:
Citizens may visit the Wheat Ridge Speaks website and enter written comments
of up to 1,000 words on any Council agenda item. The deadline for citizens to
submit comments is 12:00 Noon Mountain Time on the day of a Council session
so that Council members, other elected officials and City Staff have time to
review the comments before the meeting on Monday evening.
The City Clerk’s Office transcribes those Wheat Ridge Speaks comments into
these minutes, placing each comment along with the record for that agenda item,
including items that include a public hearing (verbatim, if the comments do not
contain lascivious language or unlawful hate speech).
The following comments appeared in Wheat Ridge Speaks for this meeting. Both relate
to item 2 on tonight’s agenda.
Wow. I was all ready to tell City governing members to stay away from private property, but after seeing
photos (view photos on comment left June 4th) of the wood skate park, I am amazed that no permits
were required on the building of this structure. Height? the balcony? and looks trashy under the deck--
Code enforcement, administrative policies? Did the surrounding neighbors bring to the city's attention
this structure while it was being built? While I truly believe government has no business being involved
in outdoor play areas on private property this structure seems to be more aligned with code
enforcement already on the books--administrative policy and good common sense as to allowance of
the structure. I support some type of resolution on this structure but will never support government on
private property. This is a structure type that is already on the books? so find a way to resolve this issue
using existing powers, do not add more powers. Are the property owners "attending" the study session
tonight? Thank you
06/07/2021 9:53 am
VIVIAN VOS
6920 W 47 PLACE WHEAT RIDGE, 80033
Comments regarding impact of wooden skate park Half pipe structure W35th Place Wheat Ridge June 4,
2021
Our position:
• This structure undermines the “sanctuary” of one’s home and inflicts an unreasonable amount of
noise and loss of privacy on its neighbors causing undue stress and disturbance in an already turbulent
world.
3
• We believe the impact of this skate park half pipe structure on neighboring properties is way beyond
that which can be considered reasonable in a suburban family environment.
• This structure would be more suited in a professional skate park built for such a purpose. It is well
beyond a “play structure” and is used predominantly by adults.
• If this skate park is allowed to stay Wheat Ridge needs to consider where this could end? Is a roller
coaster or theme park the next iteration?
Noise:
• The noise is clearly audible in both the back AND the front yard, plus inside the home and can continue
for many hours.
• The sound of small hard skateboard wheels rushing over the wooden halfpipe and its
joints is considerably amplified by its hollow structure. This “whooshing” noise (similar to a train
passing) is punctuated at variable intervals by a crescendo of crashes and clatters as the skater hits the
opposite deck rotates in the air and either continues to ride down the ramp or crashes with a loud bang.
The activity is accompanied by a considerable amount of yelling encouragement or condolences from
the assembled three – eight skaters on the deck overlooking our back yard.
• Because of the significant variety and intensity of noises, these are not sounds that you can just “tune
out”. It is impossible to concentrate or relax in the home with the noise and the anticipation of the crash
that will come after an unknown number of rides up and down the half pipe.
• The noise from this activity makes it very difficult to work or study from home.
Privacy:
• This structure with its deck that is estimated to be 30ft high looks directly into our back yard and I
guess could accommodate up to 8 skaters. It is very uncomfortable to use our back yard when the half
pipe is in use. It feels more like a public space rather than our back yard.
• The skaters “hang out” on either of the two decks and have a direct line of site into our yard and the
upper and lower windows of our house from the one close to our house. We can hear skater’s
conversation clearly from that height and distance and doubtless they can hear ours. One rider waived
from the deck and asked how my day was going last week as I was working in the yard.
• It would be difficult for anyone to hold a social function in our backyard with this level of intrusive
interaction and associated noise from the half pipe.
• The half pipe structure is also bedecked with a series of bright lights all along the periphery of the
structure that are visible from our house. The skating activity is usually associated with loud music.
• The upper deck of the half pipe extends an estimated 15- 20ft above our fence and now we face this
imposing structure from our yard, patio and windows.
Safety:
• The upper deck overlooking our house and yard appears to be very close to the live electricity wires
running parallel to the deck.
• From our perspective it appears as if someone could inadvertently reach out and touch the wires? In
addition, skaters often use momentum to “fly” off the side of the pipe and leap beyond the railings of
the upper deck as they rotate and position for the return slope. It begs the question if one could lose
control and crash into the power lines?
• Studies have shown that unwelcome noise adversely impacts the mental and physical health of
victims. I have no proof this has happened as yet but can attest to the fact that listening to the barrage
of sounds is a disturbing experience, leaving one to “worry” about how long it will continue when the
next event commences to spoil your day.
In conclusion -there is no effective mitigation activity that we have found in dealing with this nuisance,
we believe that this half pipe skate park structure is not suitable for a residential environment. Current
4
and future residents of Wheat Ridge expect a level of protection from inappropriate structures that
severely impact the quality of life. We deserve better!
06/04/2021 4:27 pm
Peter and Kathleen Baccarini
11065 Linda Vista Drive Lakewood, 80215
Clerk’s Note: This posting included several photos attached, showing the half-pipe
structure. Those photos are still available to view on the Wheat Ridge Speaks website.
1. Urban Renewal Authority Tax Increment Revenue Bonds
Discussion began at 6:44 pm, Approx. :13 minutes into the recording of the session.
Issue
The Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority (Authority) dba Renewal Wheat Ridge
(RWR) will be issuing tax-exempt bonds (Bonds) this July for various capital projects
within the I-70/Kipling Corridors Urban Renewal Plan Area (Plan Area). In order for
RWR to receive the highest rating and lowest interest rate on the Bonds, it is necessary
for City Council to approve a Replenishment Resolution authorizing the City Manager to
replenish the Reserve Fund on the Bonds, with General Fund reserves, in the event
RWR does not have adequate funding to pay annual debt service on the Bonds. A
Cooperation Agreement between the City and RWR will require that RWR repay the
City for any loan made to replenish the Reserve Fund. Lastly, an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) between the City and RWR will detail the partnership between the two
parties to fund and construct the capital projects.
Staff reports
Mr. Goff reviewed the reasons that this item is on the Study Session agenda, the projects that brought these bonds into the City’s financial resources, and introduced Steve Art.
Mr. Art gave a formal presentation on the Financial impacts and background. If City
Council appropriates funds pursuant to the Replenishment Resolution to replenish the
Reserve Fund, such funds shall be a loan from the City to the Authority to be repaid as provided within the existing Cooperation Agreement. This Resolution does not create a general obligation or other indebtedness of the City and will not obligate or compel the City to make payments in the event of a draw on or deficiency in the Reserve Fund
beyond those appropriated at the City Council’s sole discretion.
Ms. Tasker y’s (Butler Snow, the City’s bond law firm) explained to Council what action they are asked to take and the reasons, legal and financial, for requesting that Council formally approve this financing. She also introduced Mark Reagan, with Piper Sandler, (members NYSE, the bond underwriter) who presented detailed explanation of how the
proposed City action will lower the market interest rate on the bonds when issued.
5
(During discussion of this item there was a brief recess to handle technical difficulties; the Zoom feed was lost but Channel 8 and YouTube remained live and available to the public.)
Councilmembers had questions and comments:
Councilmember Urban asked detailed questions about the impact of the bonds on other projects, and Mr. Art and Ms. Tasker provided a detailed reply.
He also asked what legal risks and financial risks the City undertakes with the requested action on these bonds. Again, Mr. Art and Ms. Tasker gave a detailed answer. Mr. Goff commented that our bond law firm and underwriters have our
confidence in terms of mitigating the City’s risk and providing reliable, professional advice.
Councilmember Hoppe proposed a consensus to ask staff to bring to Council an appropriate item or items to move the bond approval forward.
Consensus attained.
2. Outdoor Recreational Equipment on Private Property
Discussion began at 7:21 pm, approximately :50 minutes into the session.
Issue
Over the past year, while public recreational facilities were closed for extended periods
due to COVID-19, the general population was largely at home, and the purchase of
personal recreational equipment increased noticeably. This trend includes everything
from trampolines to basketball hoops, swimming pools to swing sets. With the increased
prevalence and scale of personal recreation equipment on private property (typically
residences), Councilmembers Weaver and Stites requested a discussion at a study
session concerning a potential regulatory structure for outdoor recreational equipment
on private property. Staff has conducted a review of the applicable codes and policies in
the City and in neighboring cities.
Staff reports
Mr. Goff introduced Ken Johnstone and Lauren Mikulak. Mr. Johnstone and Ms.
Mikulak explained that, for residential uses, there are many possible kinds of accessory
recreational structures and play equipment including but not limited to in-ground pools,
above-ground pools, hot tubs, playsets, tree or play houses, basketball hoops,
trampolines, obstacle/ninja courses, skate park equipment, lemonade stands, goals and
nets, bounce houses, and movie screens. Some of these are more permanent in nature
and some more portable.
The building code has explicit requirements related to pools but specifically exempts
play structures from permit requirements. Section 5-76 of the municipal code amends
section 105.2 of the International Building Code (IBC) and exempts from permitting the
following types of recreational improvements:
6
• playhouses less than 120 square feet,
• above ground pools that are less than 24 inches in depth and not greater than
5,000 gallons, and
• swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one- and two-
family dwellings.
Staff explained that proposed code changes would clearly help to prevent injuries and
fatalities, as well as limiting equipment such as the half-pipe structure described by the
citizens who came to speak tonight.
Councilmembers had questions and comments:
Councilmember Weaver asked whether a proposed action would address the specific
structures for playgrounds and back yards, the attendant noise, or both. Ms. Mikulak
replied that the newly revised noise ordinance addresses that issue, so it will be most
effective to look at requiring building permits for permanent recreational structures.
Councilmember Stites asked about the kinds of equipment and structures an ordinance
can address. Ms. Mikulak replied that disallowing any specific type of structure, such as
a half-pipe, would be problematic to enforce. It would be better to restrict the sizes,
heights, and safety of playground equipment without specifically addressing a kind of
playground equipment.
Councilmembers stated that they support the limitation of structural features vs.
disallowing specific kinds of structure. Councilmember Hultin asked that we not restrict
traditional children’s playground equipment unduly, that we use some common sense.
Councilmembers asked detailed questions about several topics, including how we
should restrict playground structures in a way similar to the way we restrict sheds,
including setbacks and height. Council also commented that we should also consider
equipment like trampolines and in-ground pools, and the attendant noise and
aesthetics.
Councilmembers also asked about restricting play equipment in front yards and in flag
lots. They also asked how the City would define a permanent playground structure vs.
temporary. Ms. Mikulak responded that codes usually rely upon portability, anchoring
and how easy it is to disassemble and remove a playground structure.
Councilmember Weaver suggested that we also look at our current shed restrictions
and ensure that any new action aligns with that shed ordinance.
Councilmember Hoppe proposed a consensus to direct staff to begin with the
accessory structure code and bring forward actions that would address the definition of
“permanent” playground equipment structures, the size of playground equipment,
especially height, and setbacks in line with the accessory structure code.
7
Consensus attained.
3. Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedures
Discussion began at 8:02 pm, approximately 1:31 hours into the session.
Issue
The Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge provides that the Council may determine its own
rules of procedure for meetings. Section B of Suspension and Amendment of these
Rules states “These Rules may be amended, or new Rules adopted by a majority vote
of City Council Members present at a Regular or Special Meeting, provided that the
proposed amendments or new Rules shall have been submitted in writing to City
Council at a preceding meeting or a Study Session. Any City Council Member, or the
Mayor, may initiate an amendment of these Rules in the manner provided for initiation
of Agenda Items by Rule V.D. These Rules shall be reviewed and revised by the City
Council as needed and as provided for herein.
Staff reports
Mr. Goff recounted the most recent occasion when the Council Rules of Order and
Procedures were amended, in February of 2019.
Recently the Mayor and Council brought potential amendments to those Rules and Procedures. Mr. Goff summarized a conversation with Mr. Dahl about the issues Councilmembers raised.
In what follows, these minutes recreate the list of 12 proposed changes as they appeared in the meeting packet, and the consensuses reached at this session. Councilmember Hultin suggested the first 10 changes, Councilmember Urban number 11 and the Mayor on behalf of the City Attorney, Mr. Dahl, number 12. During the meeting, the Mayor brought forward
several additional changes, which are also recorded herein below.
1. Replace "Citizen" with "Public" or "Member of the Public" for "Citizen's Right to Speak"; and replace "Citizen" with "Public" or "Member of the Public" throughout the document.
Councilmember Hultin addressed her request to change references to “citizens” to read “the public” or “members of the public,” and her reasons for requesting the change.
Council discussed Councilmember Hultin’s suggestion and other terms that Council
could incorporate into the Rules.
Councilmember Hultin proposed a consensus to replace citizen in Council Rules with the term “public” or “member of the public.” Consensus attained.
2. Clean up the rules throughout to consistently use the either the term "Chair" or "Presiding
Officer".
Consensus proposed and achieved to consistently use the term “Chair.”
8
3. Section 11.4.e. – Written comments – amend to consider comments received by the public through Wheat Ridge Speaks.
Mr. Dahl recommended this change in the language: “Written comments provided to
the Council in any of the online tools provided by the City, or in hard copy.”
The mayor proposed a consensus to move forward with the changes to these
provisions per the City Attorney’s recommendations. Consensus attained.
4. Sections II.A.2.a & II.A.3.a: I would like to reduce the number of donated time slots from two to one for a total of 6 minutes.
Councilmember Hultin proposed to change the Citizen’s Right to Speak rules to allow
any one speaker to yield his or her time to one other speaker, not two other speakers as
currently in the rules.
Other Councilmembers opposed this suggestion on grounds that 9 minutes by one
speaker has always been rare and we are just returning to Chambers after a long hiatus
due to the pandemic.
Other Councilmembers supported Councilmember Hultin’s suggestion in the interest of
efficiency, because limiting the public to two speakers for 6 minutes total time including
time yielded would make little perceived or practical difference. In a period of several
years, Councilmembers recalled only one or two instances when one speaker spoke for
9 minutes using time yielded by two other speakers.
The Mayor proposed and achieved a consensus to make no change in yielding
speakers’ time for the present.
5. Sections II.A.2 & II.A.3: can we add a section allowing for additional time in the event the speaker needs translation services?
Councilmember Hultin suggested several accommodations for the disabled, including
sign language interpretation for the deaf. She withdrew her suggestion after due
discussion about the current availability of such services.
6. Section III.B.1.c: Include option for a nominee to withdraw their name from
consideration.”
Mr. Dahl proposed the following language. “Nominees may choose to remove their
name from nomination.”
Councilmember Hultin proposed and achieved a consensus to adopt Mr. Dahl’s
suggested language.
7. Section IV.C: Do we need to specify who has the right to adjourn a meeting?
9
Mr. Dahl recalled in his suggestions that under our Rules and Robert’s Rules of
Order, “Any meeting of the Council may be adjourned, by majority vote of members
present, to a later date and time.”
Mr. Dahl proposes a change to allow a simple majority of the members to pass a
motion to adjourn the meeting, or to permit the chair to adjourn the meeting.
Consensus proposed to make that change; consensus attained.
8. Section V.B: Can we move Approval of Minutes and Approval of Agenda to before Proclamations and Ceremonies? 2 reasons: #1: sometimes we have a lot of proclamations and ceremonies. If the agenda is being modified and affecting people in the room to speak, it would be considerate for them to know earlier in the meeting. #2: The agenda
includes the proclamations and ceremonies, so it makes sense to me to approve that
agenda beforehand.
The Mayor proposed a consensus that we move the approval of minutes and
approval of the agenda to prior to the proclamations and ceremonies. Consensus
attained.
9. Section V.E: Do we need to include any references to the automatic postponement of a
hearing due to a protest?
10. Section V.E.2: Did we decide to take any formal action during hearings to acknowledge online comment has been received and reviewed? If so, do we need to include that procedure in the Council Rules?
Following due discussion and deliberation on items 9 and 10, a consensus was
proposed and achieved not to make any changes to the rules listed in those items.
Consensus attained.
11. Section IV: Council meetings and meeting procedures for virtual attendance by councilmembers. Add a new Subsection A entitled “Attendance at Meetings, to read (more or less): “Council members are expected to attend Council meetings in person. In the event of illness, weather, or other necessity, members may attend virtually by telephone or through the zoom or other remote attendance platform provided by the City
and amend Section A.1 to read “the Council meets for Regular, Adjourned, …et Meetings…” [thus deleting “in the Municipal Building;” so as to cover situations involving other locations, and virtual meetings.
Mayor Starker proposed a consensus to accept Mr. Dahl’s recommendations about
item 11 in the meeting packet. Consensus attained.
Councilmember Urban submitted the following proposed change.
12. Section V.E (Public Hearings, I would revise the second sentence to read: “There is no
limit on individual public testimony, provided, however, that the presiding officer may impose a limit on individual speaker’s time IN CONSIDERATION OF THE NUMBER
10
OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ON THE HEARING ITEM AND THE AVAILABLE TIME FOR THE HEARING.
The Mayor proposed and attained a consensus to accept Mr. Dahl’s recommendation
with respect to this rule. Consensus attained.
Mayor Starker brought several additional proposed changes to the Council Rules.
The Mayor proposed a consensus to change from the word “will” to “may” in the
specific rule that governs when citizen’s comments are heard during Study Sessions (or
Study Sessions conducted in conjunction with other Council sessions). Consensus
attained.
The Mayor proposed a consensus to change the rules related to timekeeping during
Citizen’s Right to Speak to clarify that the City Clerk, or his or her designee, serve as
the official timekeeper for Citizens’ Right to Speak. Consensus attained.
The Mayor proposed that we ask for further discussion with Mr. Dahl concerning the
Rule that, during an executive session, Councilmembers have other options than
“terminating the executive session,” if the conversation wanders from the called purpose
of the executive session. The Mayor proposed a consensus to add after the word
“terminated,” language to read “or may request that the discussion return to the matter
at hand,” or “… returned to the stated purpose for the Executive Session,” and seek a
review and opinion from the City Attorney as to the exact wording. Consensus
attained.
The Mayor proposed a consensus to strike from the Rules in the section related to
Ordinances on First Reading language that states an Ordinance may be
amended/changed at the time of the First Reading. Consensus attained.
4. Staff Report(s)
This item began at approximately 8:56 p.m.
Mr. Goff reported on the current status of Senate Bill 273, previously introduced as
Senate Bill 62, which was killed in committee today, to the great relief of chiefs of police
across the state.
This Thursday, June 10 6:30 – 8:00 is a virtual meeting to further discuss the Lutheran
legacy campus.
The official groundbreaking for the SCL’s new hospital at Clear Creek Crossing is
scheduled for this Wednesday, June 9 at 9:00 am.
5. Elected Officials’ Report
City Clerk Kirkpatrick thanked the management team for their outstanding leadership
and service during the pandemic.
11
Councilmember Dozeman has served for the past year on the CML executive board;
she sought a consensus to reappoint her to that position. Councilmember Hoppe
proposed such a consensus to support Councilmember Dozeman’s re-application.
Consensus attained.
Councilmember Hultin updated us on the All-American City competition and reminded
us of the festivities coming up on Wednesday, June 10th. She thanked the many staff,
Councilmembers and community members who have worked so hard on this project.
Clerk’s Note, June 10, 2021: This evening the City of Wheat Ridge won the designation,
All-American City!
Councilmember Nosler Beck, also on behalf of Councilmember Dozeman, asked that
Mr. Goff provide an update on progress with the sound wall at the Rocky Mountain
Bottling Plant. Mr. Goff gave a detailed answer.
Councilmembers Stites and Weaver will hold a virtual Applewood neighborhood
meeting this Saturday, June 12.
Councilmember Hultin asked whether Council action is required to end the City
Manager’s emergency authority during the pandemic. Mr. Goff explained that the
resolution granting those powers expires when the Governor rescinds the Public Health
Emergency Order.
Ms. Scheck reported on the technical issues that caused a glitch this evening in the
meeting broadcast. She apologized for the situation and reviewed next steps.
Councilmembers consented to staff’s recommendation that as of June 14 Council will
once again meet on the dais.
The Mayor thanked the staff and guest presenters who came this evening and
contributed to a very productive meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Study Session adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON June 14, 2021
Steve Kirkpatrick, City Clerk
Janeece Hoppe, Mayor Pro Tem