Alamosa City Council debates limit on inoperable vehicles, seeks code fix

At a city work session, Alamosa City staff presented proposed amendments to resolve a conflict between two code sections governing inoperable vehicles and outdoor storage and floated a numeric cap on hidden inoperable vehicles in residential yards.

City Manager apologized for not circulating materials earlier and turned the presentation over to staff. Eric, a city staff member leading the item, said the conflict stems from section 14‑33 (motor vehicle nuisance code), which allows inoperable vehicles behind a concealed fence, and section 21‑4‑506 (outdoor storage), which forbids using a yard to 'dispose' of inoperable vehicles. Eric said staff’s approach is to amend 21‑4‑506 to defer to 14‑33 and to revise 14‑33 to limit how many hidden inoperable vehicles a property may contain.

"You can store them so long as you can't see them, except that you can't have more than three," Eric said, summarizing the proposal staff discussed internally and with the planning commission. Staff also recommended clarifying the working definition of an "inoperable vehicle" to mean a vehicle not capable of being driven on the highway or not currently licensed and registered.

Staff noted a related carve‑out for "antique" or "classic" vehicles based on Colorado collector plates has produced ambiguous results in enforcement and litigation. Eric told the council the collector‑plate rule (available to vehicles 25 years or older) invites disputes and court defenses that make enforcement difficult; staff suggested removing or tightening that exemption to reduce legal ambiguity.

Fire and public‑safety risks were a central part of the discussion. A fire department official who addressed the council described hazards from clustered inoperable vehicles — leaking hydrocarbons, vermin, and rapid fire propagation when vehicles are close together — and said such scenes create hazards for first responders and nearby homes. Chief Worth told councilors, "10 to 15 feet is a good number to be away from another house because of the amount of heat," arguing that separation from structures or other vehicles improves firefighter access and reduces exposure risk.

Planning commission input and enforceability shaped staff recommendations. Holly, a city staff member, said the planning commission met on the question and ‘‘it was a very unanimous discussion about three vehicles’’ as a reasonable cap. Staff and Captain Burch stressed that current conflicting language leaves code enforcement without clear tools to respond to repeated neighbor complaints.

Councilors debated scope, enforcement and equity. Councilor Carson warned strict numeric limits paired with aggressive fines or liens could push people from their homes and called such regulation "draconian" and potentially "classist." "It feels like fines, fines, fines, leans," Carson said, voicing concern about cumulative penalties on lower‑income residents. Staff responded that the intent is to give enforcement discretion, work with residents making progress and reserve fines or property actions for extreme, noncompliant cases.

Members discussed several possible approaches: a discrete numeric cap (staff and planning commission favored three), a higher cap (four or five was suggested by some councilors), a minimum distance from structures or property lines (Chief Worth’s 10–15 feet recommendation), or a density/area calculation. Staff said a fixed number is easier for enforcement officers to apply than a per‑square‑foot density metric, which could be difficult to compute and enforce consistently.

Other practical issues raised included towing feasibility under state law, the difficulty of finding tow contractors willing to remove vehicles from private property, and whether vehicles temporarily undergoing repair (a neighbor waiting on parts) should be exempted. Staff explained standard enforcement paths — notice of violation, summons, court orders, towing and liens — and said they typically work with owners on incremental progress before pursuing punitive measures.

Councilors also clarified that licensed, operable vehicles would not be subject to an inoperable‑vehicle limit; the current code ties operability to licensing and the ability to be driven. Trailers and motorboats were noted as covered by the current vehicle definition but rowboats are not.

There were no formal votes. Councilors asked staff to refine draft ordinance language to: remove ambiguous antique‑vehicle language, define "inoperable," present a practicable numeric cap or alternative, and include enforceability and safety measures (for example, minimum spacing and fluid‑drainage requirements were discussed as options). Staff said they would return with revised language at a future work session.

The council scheduled another work session to continue the discussion and directed staff to draft clearer, enforceable language that balances public safety and neighborhood impacts with concerns about disproportionate effects on lower‑income residents.