Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />April 4, 2000 <br />Page 9. <br /> <br />He noted that under the lease tenants are guaranteed quiet and enjoyment. He did not <br />want to see the City interfere with the affairs of private citizens. <br /> <br />Keany asked City Attorney Light to address this issue. Sam Light, City Attorney stated <br />that in Colorado, the contents of private leases are generally reviewed as private citizen <br />rights to quiet and enjoyment. He noted that a tenant has a right to peaceable occupy the <br />premises without any interference from the landlord or other tenants and that tenants <br />complaints would be referred to the landlord. <br /> <br />Light stated that under the Special Review Use, Council has the authority to set <br />conditions with respect to noise issues, but does not have to exercise that authority. <br /> <br />Keany asked Light, if noise becomes a problem, can the Special Review Use be revoked <br />or conditions added in the future. <br /> <br />Light stated that Council has a choice, but if the initial use were compatible, there would <br />be no reason to impose additional measures. He noted that the code does allow Council <br />to call up the Special Review Use for further modification if there is an issue. <br /> <br />Keany moved that Council add an amendment to the approval of the Resolution that upon <br />receiving multiple comPlaints or other code enforcement issues pertaining to noise, the <br />Council could recall the SRU in the future, seconded by Davidson. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that Councilman Keany brought forward an interesting point. Mayer voiced <br />his concern that the Special Review Use allows uses not consistent with the zoning and <br />that there should be some protection for the other tenants interests. <br /> <br />Sisk stated his concern that Council should not interfere with tenant/landlord issues or <br />private citizen's rights. <br /> <br />Howard asked City Attorney Light what would be the normal recourse for violations of a <br />Special Review Use. <br /> <br />Light stated that the City does not have a Noise Ordinance. If there were no special <br />conditions of the Special Review Use with respect to noise, there would be no basis to <br />call up the SPR at a later date. This does not preclude the City Council from passing a <br />Noise Ordinance and making it a police regulation. <br /> <br />Roll call was taken on the amendment. The motion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Howard, <br />Brown, Sisk and Mayer voting no. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />