Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/26/2008 - EXTERIOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODES DATE: February 26, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Beth Sowder FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Exterior Property Maintenance Codes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This session will focus on the options for Council consideration regarding Exterior Property Maintenance issues(separate from the 2006International Building Code,Dangerous Building Code revisions and Rental Housing Code revisions). Problem Statement There are physical conditions that residents consider detrimental to the well-being of their neighborhoods for which the City currently has no regulations. Over time, these issues can potentially cause deterioration of neighborhoods. To address these concerns and complaints, the Council could amend city codes to address: • Dirt/dead yards • Dilapidated fences • Excessive chipping/peeling paint • Deteriorated roofs and gutters Currently, Fort Collins does not have a significant problem with property maintenance concerns. Since there is no tracking system to monitor complaints that are not currently Code violations,staff cannot provide an accurate number of complaints received but know that the number is relatively low. However,the regulatory tools needed to address these concerns and complaints are necessary in order to prevent exterior maintenance concerns from becoming an escalating problem over time. The International Property Maintenance Code(IPMC)was looked at and used as a primary resource, and staff looked at what other communities use to address property maintenance issues in order to determine the best options for Fort Collins. Based on previous discussions and staff research, a series of options are presented for Council consideration. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff seeks direction from Council on the following questions: 1. With which property maintenance program does Council wish to move forward? • Option A— Status Quo (do nothing) • Option B—Existing Nuisance Codes plus Optional/Voluntary Enhanced Standards • Option C—Enhanced Standards applied to the entire community February 26, 02008 Page 2 2. If Council desires to enhance standards, which property maintenance standards should be enacted? a. Dirt yards b. Dilapidated fences C. Extensive chipping or peeling paint d. Deteriorated roofing and/or gutters 3. If adopted, how would Council like these property maintenance codes enforced? • Option A—Enforce violations visible from the street and/or sidewalk. • Option B—Enforce violations visible from any public right-of-way(including alleys) or from ground level of adjacent properties. 4. Does Council agree with the proposed schedule and next steps? 5. Does Council need any additional information prior to considering adoption of the Code amendments? BACKGROUND Fort Collins, like many other cities, has a growing concern over the quality and appearance of its neighborhoods. Over the past few years, concerns have been directed at physically neglected properties that can accelerate the deterioration of neighborhoods. This problem is based on property maintenance concerns and complaints that are not addressed by existing code provisions. Property maintenance concerns exist primarily in areas closer to CSU and in older, non-covenant controlled neighborhoods (although issues have also been documented in new neighborhoods as well). The northwest quadrant(north of Prospect Road and west of College Avenue)was surveyed during the summer of 2007 and out of a total of approximately 8,665 parcels surveyed, 138 properties had violations of one or more of the four conditions (yards, fence, paint, roofing) (See attachment 5). This only accounts for 1.59%of the total number of parcels in this quadrant. When taking a closer look at some of the blocks or neighborhoods within the northwest quadrant, some have a higher density of potential violations—up to 38%of the properties(attachment 5.1). To prevent property maintenance issues from becoming a larger problem, the City needs the tools to address these concerns. Discussion about Property Maintenance Standards emerged in 2005 following revisions to occupancy limits and other neighborhood quality-of-life code changes. There have been two work sessions since that time: September 12,2006 and August 14,2007(See Attachment 7). During these work sessions, staff was asked to: • Develop regulatory tools to address health, safety, and general neglect concerns (these are addressed in the Dangerous Building and Rental Housing code revisions). • Review the appearance and maintenance standards related to exterior premises (which are addressed in this Agenda Item). • Provide examples of what other communities are doing (See Attachments 3 and 4). February 26, 02008 Page 3 • Observe what problems currently exist (See Attachment 5). • Obtain public feedback (See Attachments 12 and 13). • Identify and compile assistance programs, including public-private partnerships (See Attachment 6). • Define the problem and the scope of the problem and provide examples thereof (See Attachments 8, 9, 10 and 11). • Provide estimated total number of housing units in the northwest quadrant and how many buildings were included in the survey(See Attachment 5). • Determine if the City should or could offer mitigation guidelines for dead/dirt yards (will be included in educational material). • Describe how the current and proposed Codes compare to the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) via a matrix showing the comparisons (See Attachment 4). • Explain why staff recommends enforcement for violations that are viewed from the street versus adjacent property. • Provide a description of the enforcement process. Discussion In order to address the problems described above,many other communities have adopted property maintenance regulations in conjunction with pursuing voluntary compliance approaches,including assistance programs(similar to the Larimer Home Improvement Program). In fact,the International Code Council (ICC) reports that 654 jurisdictions nationwide (35 of which are Colorado jurisdictions) have adopted the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) with local amendments. Using the IPMC as a model code and researching other communities for best practices, staff identified many examples of property maintenance codes (See Attachment 4) and used this information to determine possibilities for Fort Collins. Based on previous discussions, three series of options are presented for Council consideration (See Attachment 2). PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OPTIONS • Option A: Status Quo (null option) Option A reflects a basic level of property maintenance standards by continuing to enforce nuisance codes already in place including weeds,rubbish,inoperable motor vehicle storage,parking on yards, sidewalk snow removal, and outdoor storage -without adopting any additional standards. • Option B: Existing Nuisance Codes plus Optional/Voluntary Enhanced Property Maintenance Standards Option B reflects a basic level of property maintenance standards (e.g., existing nuisance codes including weeds, rubbish, parking on yards, sidewalk snow removal, etc.) with the option for neighborhoods to voluntarily request the City to increase property maintenance standards in their geographically defined area, as determined by the neighborhood and approved by Council. Neighborhoods that have a strong majority of property owners,who want the enhanced regulations, February 26, 02008 Page 4 as defined by Council, would apply to the City, requesting to have these standards in their neighborhood. The City would define the increased standards and track and enforce in geographic areas that have chosen the higher standards. Voluntary increased standards (apply only in neighborhoods that have requested increased standards i Basic Standards (existing codes apply to all properties) Pros: • May empower neighborhoods. • Could give citizens more choice about property maintenance standards in their neighborhood. Cons • Would create a patchwork of neighborhoods dissimilar in terms of upkeep and appearance. • Could further separate "nice neighborhoods" from "deteriorated neighborhoods", creating a division within the community. • Could create greater burden on Code Enforcement to keep track of geographic areas with enhanced standards. • Could create greater conflict among neighbors. 0 Option C: Enhanced Standards for all Fort Collins' Properties Option C would have all existing nuisance codes in place for all of Fort Collins, as well as the addition of the enhanced property maintenance standards that would be implemented and enforced equally everywhere within the city limits. Pros • Would apply the codes universally to all properties within Fort Collins (including commercial and City-owned property). • Could prevent deterioration from becoming worse and more widespread. • Would be consistent with other nuisance codes. Cons • Would apply to neighborhoods or residents who may not want these regulations. Staff recommends Option C for the overall Property Maintenance Program because: • It would help prevent property maintenance issues from becoming more widespread and create possible further deterioration. • It would be consistent with other nuisance codes. • Enforcement would be done equally throughout Fort Collins. February 26, 02008 Page 5 Description of Proposed Code Amendments forEnhanced Standards(Council can choose any or all of these) • Dirt/Dead Yards (See Attachment S): • Problem Statement: Dead and/or dirt yards in neighborhoods create a visually deteriorated appearance, encourage weed growth that can spread to neighboring properties, and increase particulates in the air; all of which can lead to a lower level of neighborhood quality and satisfaction. • Proposed Standard: The City would regulate when: o A significant amount of yard is not covered with grass, ground covering plant, or other landscaping material such as mulch, decorative gravel, stone, or paving blocks. • IPMC: There is no model language in the IPMC - other communities have code language that addresses this issue. • Dilapidated Fences (See Attachment 9): • Problem Statement: Dilapidated fences in neighborhoods create a visually deteriorated appearance that can lead to a lower level of neighborhood quality and satisfaction. The Municipal Code currently requires fences that are intended to contain pets to be in good condition. • Proposed Standard: The City would regulate when: 0 Fence sections are leaning, buckling, sagging, or deteriorating; or 0 There is evidence of broken slats, pickets,posts, wood rails, bricks, panels, etc. • IPMC: Model language states that fences and walls shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. • Excessive Chipping/Peeling Paint(See Attachment 10): • Problem Statement: Excessive chipping/peeling paint creates a visually deteriorated appearance that can lead to a lower level of neighborhood quality and satisfaction. It can also lead to the intrusion of water which can deteriorate the physical structure. • Proposed Standard: The City would regulate when: 0 Any existing painted wall or surface with an area of chipping, peeling, scaling or missing paint is greater than 25% of the wall or surface; or February 26, 02008 Page 6 0 If peeling, flaking or chipping is so pervasive or in such condition that it presents a deteriorated appearance of chronic neglect or abandonment to a reasonable person. • IPMC: Model language states that all exterior walls shall be free from holes,breaks, and loose or rotting materials; and maintained weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to prevent deterioration. • Deteriorated Roofs/Gutters (See Attachment 11): • Problem Statement: Deteriorated roofs and/or gutters create a visually deteriorated appearance that can lead to a lower level of neighborhood quality and satisfaction. Excessive deterioration can also lead to the intrusion of water which can undermine the physical structure. • Proposed Standard: The City would regulate when: o There is evidence of worn shingles or fallen guttering; 0 There is evidence of broken, split, rotted or curled materials; or 0 The condition creates a deteriorated appearance of chronic neglect or abandonment to a reasonable person. • IPMC: Model language states that the roof and flashing shall be sound,tight and not have defects that admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof drains,gutters, and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Staff recommends including all of the standards mentioned. ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS • Option A: Applies only to violations visible from the public street and/or sidewalk Pros: • Would address violations that have a larger affect on a neighborhood or block,since it would apply to violations that are visible from the public street and/or sidewalk and not just from one or two neighbors. • Would be less intrusive based on the expectation of privacy in backyards, since it would not apply to back yards. • Would be sensitive to public feedback that expressed a concern about too much government intrusion. Cons • Would not be able to regulate backyard violations. February 26, 02008 Page 7 Would not be consistent with other nuisance codes since most of the nuisance codes apply when visible from any right-of-way(including alleys)and/or the ground level of adjacent properties. • Option B: Applies to violations visible from public rights-of-way(including alleys)and the ground level of adjacent properties Pros • Would be consistent with other nuisance codes. • Would offer greater level of regulation of deteriorating properties for neighbors and neighborhoods. Cons • Could involve enforcement on properties that impact only one adjacent neighbor. • Could be difficult to address property-line issues when dealing with dilapidated fences between two private residences. • Could significantly increase the number of potential violations and could possibly increase the staff workload beyond existing resources. Staff recommends Option B because: • It would provide a greater level of regulation to address property maintenance violations that negatively affect neighbors and neighborhoods. • It would be consistent with other nuisance codes. ENFORCEMENT PROCESS The enforcement process for all nuisance codes focuses on compliance as the goal. The process encourages the property owner,tenant or property manager to comply with the code and remedy any violation prior to enforcement action such as issuance of a citation or abatement of the violation. The basic process is as follows: February 26, 02008 Page 8 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION INSPECTED (COMPLAINT OR PROACTIVE PATROL) VIOLATION NOTICE SENT TO OWNER AND TENANT (IDENTIFIE VIOLATION&DUE REINSPECTION DONE NEXT WORKING DAY AFTER DUE DATE CASE CLOSED. YES VIOLATION NO ABATOMEN1T ORDERED (90%OF ALL CASES) OORRECTEO? CIVIL CITATION ISSUED(SOME) C:END OVMFR INVOICED FOR ABATEMENT COSTS The City has a long history and commitment to achieving voluntary compliance, which is exemplified by the fact that the compliance rate is around 90%. The remaining 10%of all violations uses enforcement action as a last resort which includes abatements (violation corrected by private contractor with costs billed to the property owner)or citations issued and fines assessed. A property maintenance code would be enforced in the same manner. • Costs With the additional hourly Code Inspector approved by City Council to begin in 2009, staff anticipates that enforcement of any newly adopted property maintenance codes may be covered by the existing budget. • Public Outreach Since January 2007,public outreach has included: • On-line web survey open to anyone—368 surveys submitted (See Attachment 12) • Public meetings (January 25, 2007 and February 1, 2007) — approximately 50 people attended with approximately half in favor and half opposed. February 26, 02008 Page 9 • Small stakeholder group meetings(two meetings)—included a cross-section of stakeholders (See Attachment 13) • Newspaper columns and newsletter articles (See Attachment 14) • Colorado Apartment Association presentation • Affordable Housing Board presentation • Planning and Zoning Board presentation • Building Review Board presentation • Affordable Housing Coalition presentation • North Fort Collins Business Association presentation • Board of Realtors Presentation Feedback varied significantly with opinions on both sides of the issue. Overall, people were concerned about potential hardship for low-income, senior, and disabled residents. Most neighborhood leaders were in favor of additional property maintenance codes,while many property managers were against them. Most people felt that as long as assistance was available for people in need, then the most neglected properties should be addressed. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS The intention of the Exterior Property Maintenance Codes is not to create hardships; rather, it is to maintain a high level of neighborhood quality throughout Fort Collins. Staff is committed to helping people find the assistance programs that are appropriate and available to them. Staff has also identified some assistance programs and possible public-private partnerships (See Attachment 6). These programs include: • LaHIP (Latimer County Home Improvement Program) -helps preserve affordable housing by giving grants or loans to low-income residents for home improvement needs. • Group Workcamps Foundation - pairs volunteers with sponsors to make home repairs for elderly, low-income, and disabled residents. • Habitat for Humanity-may be able to acquire blighted properties and do rehabilitation and sell it to a first-time home buyer. • Adopt-a-Neighbor expansion,fall clean-up,and CSUnity-matches volunteers with elderly or disabled residents for yard cleanup and sidewalk snow removal -this could be expanded to include fence repairs and landscape work. • Board of Realtors project - one example is a combined effort with a local church to help families in need with home improvement projects. • Paint project -Neighborhood Services is exploring the idea of bringing back the "paint-a- thon"and partnering with local businesses in order to help people in need paint their house. • Business partnerships-staff will look to local businesses for donations of building materials to assist with home improvement projects. • Historic Landmarks-refer people whose house may qualify as a Historic Landmark-funds may be available to do certain home improvements. • Other volunteer agencies: Jaycees, Volunteers of America, Interfaith Council, Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association, CSU Student Leadership and Civic Engagement Office, etc. Throughout the proposed education phase,as well as implementation, staff will notify people of the assistance programs available to them. As described in the enforcement process,compliance is the February 26, 02008 Page 10 goal and staff will work with people in order to achieve that goal. In addition, Neighborhood Services staffcan facilitate helping people find the appropriate assistance program available to them. Additional resources would be needed for staff to be more involved as a case manager for people who need assistance. Recommended Schedule Should Council choose to implement the proposed property maintenance codes, staff recommends conducting an educational promotion throughout 2008 prior to implementation and enforcement. This will help identify where violations exist, identify those who need financial assistance to comply, give people time to plan for improvements, and allow staff to coordinate assistance programs. Beginning in January 2009, regular enforcement of the codes would commence. Staff would report back to Council annually to provide information regarding the effectiveness of the program and whether changes are needed. Next Steps Should Council wish to move forward, the following dates have been reserved: • April 1, 2008 - Council consideration of First Reading of an ordinance adopting Code amendments. • April 15, 2008 - Council consideration of Second Reading of an ordinance adopting Code amendments. ATTACHMENTS 1. Power Point Presentation. 2. Property Maintenance Code Decision Matrix. 3. Table of various communities' codes. 4. Matrices of IPMC comparison& other communities' examples. 5. Northwest quadrant map. 5.1 Closer look at one section of Northwest quadrant map. 6. Table of assistance programs and private-public partnerships. 7. Previous Work Session Summary Memos. 8. Examples of dirt/dead yard violations. 9. Examples of dilapidated fence violations. 10. Examples of excessive chipping/peeling paint violations. 11. Examples of deteriorated roof and/or gutters violations. 12. On-line survey results. 13. Small Task Group recommendations and comments summary. 14. Citizen feedback from recent Coloradoan column. Exterior Property Maintenance Codes City Council Work - • February 26 , 2008 Beth Sowder , Neighborhood Services Manager Overview of Codes Related to Neighborhood Quality 2006 Int 'I Building Code (only new buildings) 1s� Reading-March 4 , 2008 Dangerous Building Code (applies to all buildings) Work Session-March 11 , 2008 Rental Housing Code (applies to rentals) ' Work Session-March 11 , 2008 Exterior Property Maintenance Codes (applies to all properties) Work Session-February 26, 2008 1 Direction Sought 1 . With which Property Maintenance Program does Council wish to move forward ? — Option A — none — Status Quo — Option B — Existing Nuisance Codes plus Optional/Voluntary Enhanced Standards — Option C — Enhanced Standards applied to entire community 3 Direction Sought con ' t . 2 . If Council desires to enhance standards , which property maintenance standards do you want enacted ? a . Dirt/dead yards b . Dilapidated fences c . Extensive chipping or peeling paint d . Deteriorated roofing and /or gutters 4 Direction Sought con ' t . 3 . How should adopted codes be enforced ? Option A — Enforce on violations visible from the street and/or sidewalk . Option B — Enforce on violations visible from any public right-of-way or ground level of neighboring properties . 5 Direction Sought con ' t 4 . Does Council agree with the proposed schedule and next steps ? 5 . Does Council need any additional I nformation prior to considering adoption of the Code amendments ? 6 Problem Statement There are physical conditions that residents consider detrimental to the well - being of their neighborhoods for which the City currently has no regulations . Overtime , these issues can potentially cause deterioration of neighborhoods . Scope of Problem Fort Collins does not currently have a significant problem with property maintenance concerns . The goal is to address them before they escalate . Most violations in older neighborhoods . June 2007 survey in NW quadrant revealed 138 violations ( 8 , 665 parcels ) . . Only 1 . 59 % of total parcels have a violation . . Some areas have much higher concentration . 8 Supporting Research I A study done by Michael R . Greenberg from Rutgers University entitled : Improving Neighborhood Quality. A Hierarchy of Needs states : — " Crime and physical deterioration are the most critical factors associated with poor neighborhood quality . " 9 Background J Property Maintenance Standards discussion emerged in 2005 following revisions to occupancy limits and other neighborhood quality- of- life code changes . i Council Work Sessions : — September 12 , 2006 and August 14 , 2007 10 Background con ' t . 1 Previous Council directions include : . Review appearance & maintenance standards . Provide examples of other communities & comparison with Int' I Property Maintenance Code ( IPMC ) . Observe what problems currently exist and how many total parcels exist in NW quadrant . Obtain public feedback . Define problem and scope of problem . Explain enforcement process 11 Background con ' t . J Staff has used the IPMC as the primary resource as a model code and has researched other communities for best practices . According to the Int ' I Code Council ( ICC ) . 654 jurisdictions have adopted the IPMC ( nationwide ) with local amendments . . 35 Colorado jurisdictions . 12 Background con ' t Narrowed focus to codes we currently don ' t have regulations for in Fort Collins : — Dirt/Dead Yards ( not part of IPMC ) — Dilapidated Fences — Excessive Chipping/Peeling Paint — Deteriorated Roofs/Gutters The IPMC encompasses much more than these items ( light , ventilation , plumbing , mechanical , electrical ) . 13 3 sets of Decisions I Decision 1 : Property Maintenance Program Options I Decision 2 : Property Maintenance Standards Options Decision 3 : Enforcement & Implementation Options 14 Property Maintenance Decision Flow Chart PMC Program? Option A No further action (Null Option) Option B Choose standards desired : (voluntary program ) - dirt/dead yards or - dilapidated fences Option C - chipping/peeling paint (mandatory program) - roofs/gutters Choose enforcement: Option A (street view only) or Option B (any view) Decision 1 Decide what overall Property Program you would like for Fort Collins . Options 16 Property Maintenance Program Options Option A — Do nothing Nuisance Codes already in place include : l Weeds I Rubbish Inoperable Motor Vehicle Storage 1 Parking On Yards C Sidewalk Snow Removal G Outdoor Storage 17 Property Maintenance Program Options con ' t . Option B — Existing Nuisance Codes plus Optional /Voluntary Enhanced Standards ( Councilmember Troxell ' s idea ) I Existing nuisance codes ; plus i Option for neighborhoods to voluntarily request enhanced standards . Geographically defined area determined by neighborhood . . Strong majority of property owners agree . . Standards defined by Council . — Request made to Council . 18 Option B - Pros and Cons Pros : I May empower neighborhoods . I Could give citizens more choice about property maintenance standards in their neighborhoods . Cons : I Could create a patchwork of neighborhoods dissimilar in terms of upkeep and appearance . 1 Could further separate " nice neighborhoods" from "deteriorated neighborhoods" . I Could create greater burden on Code Enforcement to keep track of geographic areas with enhanced standards . Could create greater neighborhood conflict . 19 Property Maintenance Program Options con 7t . Option C — Enhanced Standards for all Fort Collins ' Properties [ Basic level of property maintenance with existing nuisance codes . Adds enhanced property maintenance standards . rlmplemented and enforced equally everywhere within city limits . 20 Option C — Pros and Cons Pros : r Would apply the codes universally to all properties . Could prevent deterioration from becoming worse and more widespread . Would be consistent with other nuisance codes . Cons : Would apply to neighborhoods or residents who may not want these regulations . 21 Staff Recommendation J Staff recommends Option C for the overall Property Maintenance Program because : . It would help prevent property maintenance issues from becoming more widespread and create possible further deterioration . . It would be consistent with other nuisance codes . . Enforcement would be done equally throughout Fort Collins . 22 Decision 2 1 Decide what standards , if any , you would like included ( choose any or all ) : . Dirt/ Dead Yards . Dilapidated Fences . Excessive Chipping/ Peeling Paint . Deteriorated Roofs/Gutters 23 Dirt/ Dead Yards IPMC : No model language in IPMC . Other communities have codes to address this issue . Proposed Standard : The City would regulate when a significant amount of yard is not covered with grass , ground covering plant , or other landscaping material ( mulch , decorative gravel , stone , or paving blocks ) . 24 s .i . �r . .Ifs bt rs�� . .iCY•� `5'� rs 'i \ ,.y '-..a. - .a NZ N I M �+ om\ t H ppp ,cet µ 4t . e- .: J i I AP Nv MAY 10 2007 Dilapidated Fences IPMC : States that fences and walls shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair . Proposed Standard : The City would regulate when fence sections are leaning , buckling , sagging , deteriorating ; or there is evidence of broken slats , pickets , posts , wood rails , bricks , panels , etc . 27 A �i F UAW 01 ,I1►�/� 1 y i dd pill 3 #+ Excessive Chipping / Peeling Paint IPMC : States that all exterior walls shall be free from holes , breaks , and loose or rotting materials ; and maintained weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to prevent deterioration . Proposed Standard : The City would regulate when any existing painted wall or surface with an area of chipping , peeling , scaling or missing paint is greater than 25 % of the wall or surface ; or if it is so pervasive or in such a condition that it presents a deteriorated appearance of chronic neglect or abandonment to a reasonable person . 30 y T .� ,r Nr04 Ir V ✓ .=. � � ' v � . , �. c � 1 -. fit,,.. . �� • ` ' - - - _ Deteriorated Roofs/ Gutters IPMC : States that roof and flashing shall be sound , tight and not have defects that admit rain . Roof drains , gutters , and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions . Proposed Standard : The City would regulate when there is evidence of worn shingles or fallen guttering ; broken , split , rotted or curled materials ; or chronic neglect or abandonment . 33 i . K . . Jit . �` mow• " r-� J Ow Ocir, 200 = -pt wr ! j Staff Recommendation J Staff recommends including all of the standards mentioned . 36 Decision 3 1 If you choose to have a Property Maintenance Program , how you would like it enforced ? 37 Enforcement & Implementation Options Option A — Enforce only violations visible from the public street and /or sidewalk Pros : Addresses violations that have a larger impact . Less intrusive based on the expectation of privacy in backyards . Sensitive to public feedback . Cons : I Would not be able to enforce backyard violations . I Would not be consistent with other nuisance code enforcement . 38 Enforcement & Implementation Options con ' t . Option B — Enforce violations seen from public rights- of-way and ground level of neighboring properties Pros : Consistent with other nuisance codes . Offers greater level of regulation . Cons : G Enforcement on properties that impact only one neighbor. F Difficult to address property line issues (fences between two private residences ) . I Difficult to abate and/or mitigate dirt backyards due to dogs . t Could increase staff workload beyond existing resources . 39 Staff Recommendation J Staff recommends Option B because : . It would provide a greater level of regulation to address property maintenance violations that negatively affect neighbors and neighborhoods . . It would be consistent with other nuisance codes . 40 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION INSPECTED (COMPLAINT OR PROACTIVE PATROL ) VIOLATION NOTICE SENT TO OWNER AND TENANT ( IDENTIFIES VIOLATION & DUE DATE ) REINSPECTION DONE NEXT WORKING DAY AFTER DUE DATE CASE CLOSED YES VIOLATION NO ABATEMENT ORDERED (90% OF ALL CASES) CORRECTED? CIVIL CITATION ISSUED (SOME) END OWNER INVOICED FOR ABATEMENT COSTS Enforcement con ' t . Commitment to achieving voluntary • • . 190 % compliance I Use abatements . • citations resort to gain compliance / of cases ) . Property Maintenance codes • • be civil infractions . 42 21 Public Outreach Since January 2007 , public outreach has included : I On - line web survey I Public meetings Newspaper columns and newsletter articles i Multiple presentations to various Boards and interest groups 43 Feedback Received I Feedback received varied significantly . I Generally , property managers are opposed to property maintenance codes . Neighborhood folks are in favor of them . i Many agreed that a minimal standard that would address the worst cases would be okay . 1 Everyone involved concerned about creating hardships . 44 Assistance Programs jiThe intent is not to create hardships ; rather to maintain a high level of neighborhood quality in Fort Collins . ] , Common concern among all involved is to provide assistance to those in need . 45 Assistance Programs con ' t . I Programs available include : — LaHIP — Larimer Home Improvement Program — Group Workcamps Foundation — Habitat for Humanity — Adopt-A- Neighbor & CSUnity — Board of Realtors project — Volunteer agencies (Jaycees , Volunteers of America , Interfaith Council , Homebuilder' s Association , CSU Student Leadership and Civic Engagement Office ) i Possible new programs : — Paint-A-Thon — Business partnerships 46 Assistance Programs con ' t . i Staff is committed to helping people find assistance that is appropriate & available to them . This will be done through : . Educational promotion . One - on -one counseling . Referrals to appropriate agency . Enforcement process 47 Recommended Schedule i Educational promotion throughout 2008 : — Identify where violations exist & who needs assistance . — Give people time to plan for improvements . January 2009 — regular enforcement would commence . i Staff will provide periodic reports to Council regarding program effectiveness . 48 Next Steps Should Council wish to move forward , the following dates have been reserved : I April 1 , 2008 — 1st Reading 1 April 15 , 2008 — 2nd Reading 49 Direction Sought 1 . With which property maintenance program does Council wish to move forward ? — Option A — none — Status Quo — Option B — Existing Nuisance Codes plus Optional /Voluntary Enhanced Standards — Option C — Enhanced Standards applied to entire community 50 Direction Sought con ' t . 2 . If Council desires to enhance standards , which property maintenance standards do you want enacted ? a . Dirt/dead yards b . Dilapidated fences c . Extensive chipping or peeling paint d . Deteriorated roofing and /or gutters 51 Direction Sought con ' t . 3 . How should adopted codes be enforced ? Option A — Enforce on violations visible from the street and/or sidewalk . Option B — Enforce on violations visible from any public right-of-way or ground level of neighboring properties . 52 Direction Sought con ' t 4 . Does Council agree with the proposed schedule and next steps ? 5 . Does Council need any additional I nformation prior to considering adoption of the Code amendments ? 53 Questions ? Thank you . ATTACHMENT Property Maintenance Code Decision Matrix Decision 1 : Property Maintenance Program Decision 2 : Property Maintenance Standards Decision'! : Implelgentation & Options choo a one _ , , O _bons choose which should be include - = nt 09.Ugns (choqwQxLeh Option A : Dead/ Dirt Yards - more than 50 % of yard Option A: Status Quo (null option) is dirt or dead, or yard areas are not covered Enforce on violations that can be with grass, ground covering plant, or other seen from the street and/or Option B . landscaping material such as mulch, sidewalk. Existing Nuisance Codes plus decorative gravel, stone, etc. Optional/Voluntary Enhanced Standards Opts Dilapidated Fences - fence sections are Enforce on violations that can be • Existing nuisance codes (weeds, rubbish, leaning, buckling, sagging or deteriorating; seen from any public right-of-way parking on yards, etc.) would continue to or fences have broken slats, pickets, posts, (including alleys) or from the be in place for all of Fort Collins. wood rails, bricks or panels. ground level of adjacent neighboring properties. • Neighborhoods with a strong majority in Excessive Chipping f Peeling Paint - any favor of adding enhanced standards painted wall or surface with an area of could apply to the City to have the chipping, peeling, scaling or missing paint is standards implemented in their defined greater than 25 % of the wall or surface geographic area . peeling, flaking or chipping is so pervasive or in such a condition that it presents a Option C . deteriorated appearance of chronic neglect Enhanced Standards for all or abandonment to a reasonable person. • Existing nuisance codes would continue Deteriorated Roofs/Gutters - worn to be in place for all of Fort Collins. shingles, fallen guttering or broken, split, Enhanced property maintenance rotted or curled roofing materials present a standards would be implemented and deteriorated appearance of chronic neglect enforced equally, everywhere, within the or abandonment to a reasonable person. city limits. Do other communities have these codes ? ATTACHMENT 3 City, State Dead/Dirt Fences Peeling Paint Roofs/gutters Yards Olathe, KS ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Sacramento, CA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Parsippany-Troy, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NJ Glendale, AZ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Greeley, CO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Tempe, AZ ✓ ✓ ✓ East Lansing, MI ✓ ✓ West Lafayette, IN ✓ ✓ ✓ Eagan, MN ✓ ✓ ✓ Henderson, NV ✓ ✓ ✓ West Bloomfield , ✓ ✓ ✓ MI Vancouver, WA ✓ ✓ Kettering, OH ✓ ✓ ✓ Aurora, IL Vol' ✓ ✓ ✓ (dead trees) Richardson, TX ✓ ✓ ✓ Streamwood, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ Elgin, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ (ground cover) Calumet City, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Overland Park, KS ✓ ✓ Newport News, VA ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Beloit, WI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mt. Prospect, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lawrence, KS ✓ ✓ ✓ Arlington Heights, ✓ ✓ ✓ IL Bloomington, MN ✓ ✓ ✓ Tucson, AZ ✓ ✓ Des Moines, IA ✓ ✓ Fargo, ND ✓ ✓ ✓ Longmont, CO ✓ ✓ ✓ Loveland, CO ✓ ✓ ✓ Naperville, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ Su garland, TX ✓ ✓ ✓ Scottsdale, AZ ✓ ✓ ✓ Thornton, CO ✓ ✓ Westminster, CO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *applies to rentals only Plano, TX ✓ ✓ ✓ Bensalem , PA ✓ ✓ ✓ Do other communities have these codes ? Cedar Falls, IA ✓ ✓ ✓ De Kalb, IL ✓ ✓ ✓ Aurora, CO ✓ ✓ Fairfield, CT ✓ ✓ Wood Dale, IL ✓ ✓ Englewood, CO ✓ ✓ ✓ Kansas City, MO ✓ ✓ Santa Clarita, CA ✓ ✓ ✓ Eden Prairie, MN ✓ ✓ Wooster, OH ✓ ✓ Glenview, IL ✓ ✓ Gainesville, FL ✓ Carrollton, TX ✓ Sparta, WI ✓ ATTACHMENT 4 How do the proposed codes compare to the IPMC and other communities ? Code IPMCLanguage �QWE amples of code language in other communities Int'l Property Maintenance Code Dead/Dirt Yards Does not address this Eagan , MN — All disturbed areas of private property not occupied by buildings , parking , storage , code . landscape beds , etc . shall be covered with some form of ground cover . Glendale , AZ — All properties shall be free from dirt yards , vegetation that is substantially dead or damaged or characterized by uncontrolled growth or lack of maintenance . East Lansing , MI — Yard areas shall be covered with grass , a ground cover plant or other landscaping material , such as mulch , decorative gravel , stone or paving blocks . Thornton , CO — All portions of lots which are not occupied by driveways , sidewalks , patios , decks , or buildings shall be landscaped or mulched ( applies to single-family dwellings on individual lots — different requirements for multi-family dwellings and commercial lots) . All landscaping shall be kept in a well-maintained and healthy growing condition . Dilapidated All accessory structures , Olathe, KS — Fence sections that are leaning , buckling , sagging , or deteriorating shall be repaired or Fences including detached replaced with materials compatible with the undamaged portions of the fence or removed . garages , fences and Plano , TX — Broken slats , posts , wood rails , bricks , or panels shall be replaced or repaired within 60 walls , shall be days . maintained structurally Overland Park, KS — All fences must be maintained in good , sound condition . They must be free of sound and in good damage , breaks , or missing structural members . repair. Excessive All exterior surfaces , Olathe, KS — Any existing painted wall surface with an area of chipping , peeling , scaling , or missing Chipping/Peeling including but not limited paint greater than 25% of the painted area must be repainted (could change the percentage to 10 , Paint to , door and window 20 , or 50 % ) . frames , cornices , Richardson , TX — Residents are responsible for maintaining homes and businesses by keeping the porches , trim , balconies , exterior free of holes and other defects . All wood surfaces must be painted and in good condition . decks and fences shall Vancouver, WA — Exterior surfaces , other than decay-resistant woods or other materials designed be maintained in good to withstand weather damage , shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other condition . Peeling , protective covering or treatment . Peeling , flaking , and chipped paint shall be eliminated and flaking and chipped surfaces repainted . paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted . IPMC Language Examples of code language in other communities Int'l Property Maintenance Code Deteriorated Roof drains , gutters and West Lafayette , IN — All components must be structurally sound and maintained to prevent Roofs/Gutters downspouts shall be deterioration ( includes roofs) . Gutters and downspouts , if any , shall be maintained in a state of good maintained in good repair. repair and free from Glendale , AZ — Roofs and all appurtenances shall be structurally sound and maintained in a safe obstructions . condition . Roof coverings shall be substantially free from broken , rotted , split , or curled materials and shall not otherwise present a deteriorated or blighted appearance . All materials shall be uniform , compatible and consistent with the design thereof. Lawrence, KS — Structures shall not include fallen guttering or worn shingles . How do our existing codes compare to the IPMC ? LanguageFort Collins Code Int'l Property Maintenance Code 7 Weeds , Brush Piles, Weeds - All premises and exterior property shall be Fort Collins — weeds and grasses must be kept to a height of not and Rubbish — maintained free from weeds or plant growth in more than 6 inches . Accumulations of rubbish and brush piles are includes Outdoor excess of (jurisdiction to insert height in inches) . All prohibited . Outdoor furniture is restricted from being stored outdoors Storage noxious weeds shall be prohibited . or in any unenclosed porch or patio . Rubbish — All exterior property and premises , and ( Sec . 20-41 thru 20-45) the interior of every structure , shall be free from any I accumulation of rubbish or garbage. Junked, Wrecked , No inoperative or unlicensed motor vehicle shall be Fort Collins — Storing inoperative or unlicensed vehicles are Abandoned , parked , kept or stored on any premises , and no prohibited unless screened by a fence or dense foliage . Inoperable Vehicles vehicle shall at any time be in a state of major disassembly , disrepair, or in the process of being ( Sec . 20-91 thru 20-95) stripped or dismantled . Exception for vehicles being stored inside a building . Parking Does not address this code . Fort Collins — Parking of vehicles, trailers , and campers is not allowed on yards . ( Sec . 20- 104 thru 20- L 0-k _ i, Public Nuisance Does not address this code . Fort Collins — addresses repeat problem properties by holding Ordinance property owner, tenants , and property managers accountable . ( Sec . 20- 110 thru Sec . 20- 125) Sidewalk Snow All sidewalks walkways , stairs , driveways , parking I Fort Collins — All public sidewalks must be clear of snow and ice 24 Removal spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a property hours after a snowfall ceases . state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous (Sec. 24-21 ) conditions . Garbage Collection Every occupant of a structure shall dispose of Fort Collins — All trash containers or plastic bags must be kept in a garbage in a clean and sanitary manner by placing storage area out of view of the street except on collection day (within (Sec . 12- 16 thru Sec , such garbage in an approved garbage disposal 12 hours of pickup) . 12-25) facility or approved garbage container. _ j PropertyIPMC Language Fort Collins Code Language . . Tree and Shrub Does not address this code . Fort Collins — The property owner is responsible to cut , trim , prune Encroachments or remove any trees or shrubs in order to provide for the safe and Sec . 27-57) convenient use of streets , sidewalks , or alleys . Camping Does not address this code . Fort Collins — Camping on public property is prohibited . Camping on private property is allowed for 7 consecutive days and not more ( Sec . 17- 181 thru 17- than 14 days in a calendar year. 182 ) ATTACHMENT 5 s 1AI• air NW Quadrant • { ti�; � � C i 1 ` �i L o. • �`' CLi y 4 IN Jane` •c, e a4 r� anN,a °n4 +,+w PIIt,♦. ,n.p� e r c ! "r, at w I up n•"'••P — City of Fort Collins • PN.• n�a t ? �('W..<. Geographic Information • aIle Services anf to t! r. ja' r. a,�+'..., o� w,•Y to 4 1 Y iZ • )cw p'"•w. r ..•�. --Sr \ L � �' 1 t ♦•n rwu� {� a t p aa Total PMC Violations - 138 tv Y» o- - E ,•� �» P I a �+ �ti �x Dirt / Dead Yards - 106 M«rYw sea , r i ! ! (, �"" •, eAi FA j Fences - 13 i F • n I T.aJ•n n, � c eels. s p Peeling Paint - 15 •t r�, A • ,1.•^0» a1 • •• 1� \ 3 Roofs = 4 . e a r P «nIre — a..., v o..a �..—..—.. �-• i • ! ! a•A � a br.— — . i = j L -a ! c° ^. n ♦ • t .,n A if a Ata:n '^ xa A ° A j{, e F = ^�j - { i -- 2 { �. eQYwa. • • z x z .. nw*sjo .: •cy " I x Sb L W WY.Yn M ., C • eels VI P, at W GIa a ! Y. 0., ! It A I OM a� le. i ! vpp i W01,006 L . O..e . pa♦ls•• ! Pn♦ w Pw� It " • ! a 0" at ~•R t. at W V 4`F �. 1'.gf«.h1 tl' 1 i Cp•Aerk 4 Vi v,se,a i I Y,y,Y, %I • uk. ii ! ! A A Legend c Monies CI 3 A a,nw. 5 w„w.Y, a Ye o y PY a M e • I.,Y« e ac' eofte ? a y t cY,a A ills tQ g `a* w u .,, �i 9 Water Features M� Mls JiMG V Mtl. n 1u« an -,'Ad ' 'O s •• a {.y VMY.i•, A,, « [ 4a n N • Iv YA, at I 11 ,—•_ oso ~o 41111 v.,,,. a .,w• a ezYe a., i..n 9i W jai ' •• �\ A , ---- City Limits atn.♦ n • osn.♦n ! f1 ? • i r e a 1 I•..a w � ~ n F Ee ` 1.,». ., • _ a to, et nI A Y NW Quadrant NlroY et yp cE � p n i W M at � W. 9 WrVn " A A �YTP t'e West a o.,- f� ; w r.f IT {. n h..- Wet .Oa 4 � a P J 1 { 1 a.n1„ o- ew« at 5 ••Y« o- a a _ fib-. ,n�. e a I ; a yv a) •E •eeP Y es 4 LnW1a e a 11,^•'•t1M i pYNY al OYNY CWb.�V ✓°.W`•° rYw, ,,,. �fe a„r� \W.11< Z� \pU,VD, O-y • wN a 131 j • aMP a .{. )jEeMY, a� ; a Its aa,.�N a+1 ls,ls. •:° ya.a a y ^^ww e w a a p1t°e pJ anw o- c1 " a a t.n...oa! a • D o f at°j�a a p««"pewM 0 p. a a �A a wr nai '.Ails... ° �• 5 >"w+ r e �., �, »C o o` wlct aY.wn a 41 ! w° �[ p ♦r" n_..a er..,. � owes,. ej wma,YC J j) } [[[ Y � wa All i! i` I IA "•I x. .e1 a, a wtwh p' C C 6 1 i _ --� __1 wur �. a w n`ue.r'Ia� a♦ ae P••'I••^ .._ 1912 i p :1 w tr a� {v w uM al at aYIMa : I j y, a 3 Rd I n.� s p P a A e e e .n,n, o.Y^a. jI a .•.. QY .... aE a. n• c..Y•u. non .f .• nt, la c , y �«„ d 1, IUse.. t„ A ill y ; A A ° A a Pea, z .A .♦.. o- 1l ` ' p( ooYY 5{ • �a L ro., . o GYI„aw. 1 t; ., Z tPf t in� w.... • i ..., " wtm f1 ,f G - ..roe•t• �' ! j a r,.,, a. L t 4 { i .i'" a ATTACHMENT 5 . 1 v + Yltir. ristiil Iafsi wgsai �11 / i � r �+e +ti*•1 r1+ia tiiiWfll #*� :r. Ste ate! 7+1s .-� �, : ! , few"" Griffin Park I . 1P11 , � • a "Mot [b %g, new Ov*r#A i—Womme , ,i 1 � i od :911 Is f°uaar �� r- � k d l4i � � JfffiiYi ++at(4 '$��'• .7 . �.i emmor 1 Or +101 , 10d + per ftvm" i P, Jim 1 , fww it N 1} Ave, r r •Af _ If `r . . J v 11 >.. ; J. - beef,, a A t small ^ EL ., . Let F � , • JfrlF S 1 ` r �... a . .�1 �. • . Refr . . � . , .�.. - �, �. � i I 11 f � i 1 HA- 1 k MR, ILL. $W Ari 1H f E !! f reet f Me ldrum I i 06 r .'��' !fRf�! fl�rwsf�" 'l�TFN! .•�#! t 7 1 ! vo ATTACHMENT 6 What assistance programs and public-private partnerships are available ? Name/Program Program Explanation Cost/Payment Info Qualifications LaHIP - Helping to preserve affordable housing. Interest rates vary from Income qualification. Larimer Funded with federal, state, county and some local money. 0% to 5 % based upon Own and occupy the County Home Loans and/or grants up to $24,999 . the families ' income. home. Improvement Repairs such as roof replacement or repair, new siding, windows, Loan terms are very Have enough equity to Program insulation, etc . flexible — affordable secure the loan. Application process is very simple. monthly payment. Resident of Larimer Program administered through the Loveland Housing Authority. County. City of Fort Collins contributed $ 75 ,000 to this revolving funding source. City of Fort Collins also contributed $75 ,000 in 2004 for administrative costs and probably will again in 2008 . City of Fort Collins dollars stay in Fort Collins and some Larimer County dollars spent in Fort Collins. Group Repairing homes Restoring communities Mending lives $ 19,000 minimum from Provide work for elderly, Workcamps Pairs teenagers and adult sponsors with communities to make home the City to help pay for low-income, and disabled Foundation repairs for elderly, low-income, and disabled residents . materials . residents. (GWF) Provide work such as porch and step repair, wheelchair ramp Funding partnership construction, interior and exterior paint, weatherization, light between GWF and the carpentry, ad siding repair. City. Already have workcam s in Loveland and Longmont. Habitat for Habitat would be interested in knowing when a property is vacant No cost to the City . Would handle each Humanity and/or boarded up or in such a dire state of repair that the house No cost to neighbors. purchase on a case-by- would need to be moved (removed) and/or have expensive remodel . case basis. They can acquire blighted properties and do rehab and sell it to a first-time home buyer. Their mission is not only to create new housing but to preserve existing low-cost housing. Adopt-a- Neighborhood Services offers this program for residents who need $ 1 , 500 per year Fort Collins residents Neighbor, Fall help with snow shoveling, leaf raking or lawn mowing and are budgeted for program who are physically Clean-up, and physically unable to do so themselves and cannot afford to hire these unable to do the work What assistance programs and public-private partnerships are available ? CSUnity services. We could potentially add assistance with fixing fences, and cannot afford to hire painting, or landscape work. these services. Match volunteers with neighbor who lives close by. Assign neighbor projects for the annual events (Fall Clean-up and CSUnit ). Board of The Board of Realtors and a local church have combined efforts to No cost to the City. Elderly, disabled or Realtors find neighbors in need of home improvement projects. The City will No cost to neighbors. cannot afford to hire the Project assist by helping to identify people in need of their help and to work to be done . facilitate the connection. Paint-up/Fix- This program used to exist in Fort Collins. It was sponsored by a No cost to the City. Elderly, disabled or up Program bank that provided paint to volunteers to help with home No cost to neighbors . cannot afford to hire the improvement projects. The City would be able to promote this type work to be done. of program if the interest is there to start it up again. Staff will work with local businesses to see if this is an option. Business Staff will actively work with local businesses in an effort to get No cost to City . Elderly, disabled or Partnerships building materials to assist with home improvement projects (Adopt- No cost to neighbors. cannot afford to hire the a-nei bor expansion) . work to be done. Multi-unit The Multi-Family Rehabilitation Program provides funds with which Affordable to rehabilitate rental properties in exchange for a commitment to Housing idea preserve the units as affordable. (staff will research this more to see (Fairfield, CT) I if it' s potentially a good idea for Ft. Collins) Other possible volunteers : Jaycees, Volunteers of America, InterFaith, Northern Colorado Homebuilder' s Association ATTACHMENT 7 ia Fort Collins Neighborhood Building Services City of fort Collins 281 N. College Ave., P.O. Box 580: Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580; Voice: 970 2216760 FAX: 970 224 6134 Memorandum To: Mayor & City Council Members Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Joe Frank, Interim PDT Director From: Felix Lee, Neighborhood & Building Services Director Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager Mike Gebo, Building Code Services Manager Date: August 15, 2007 Re: August 14, 2007 Council Work Session — Neighborhood Quality Items Joe Frank, Felix Lee, Mike Gebo, and Beth Sowder, with assistance from Ginny Sawyer and Teresa Ablao, presented the following four items affecting overall neighborhood quality to obtain further direction from Council : (a) Suggested revisions to the City Code, Chapter 5, Article II., Division 3, Dangerous Buildings (b) Some options for implementing minimum exterior property maintenance standards to address dirt/dead yards, dilapidated fences, excessive chipping or peeling paint, and deteriorated roofs and gutters. (c) Suggested revisions the City Code, Chapter 5, Article VI, Division 2, Housing Standards (d) Update on the new occupancy-limit enforcement program in effect since the first of this year Respectively, for each item, Council directed staff to do the following: Dangerous Buildings • Define the problem that we are trying to solve and what' s working well . • Provide examples of what we are trying to solve, what' s working. . .pictures. . .costs. . .data. • Clarify specifically what the proposals are and are not trying to accomplish. • Clearly delineate which provisions are applicable to vacant versus occupied buildings. • Revise and clarify list of "dangerous" items and identify those that represent truly "dire" and dangerous conditions. • Clarify conditions that explain staffs need to expedite a corrective action versus what can be achieved through the current process. • Identify the proposed revisions covered in the International Property Maintenance Code via matrix and if appropriate, to adopt a model code versus incorporating amendments into various sections of the City Code. • Provide a Standard Operating Procedure that shows problem identification, declaration of dangerous, condemnation, repair or demolition. • Explain what conditions or combinations of conditions are needed to endanger the life, health and safety of the occupants or the public. • Explain why the Dangerous Building Code section is the best placement for conditions that otherwise might be considered nuisances, such as broken sidewalk, stagnant water, and deteriorated fences? • If passed, explain how case load would be affected. Exterior Property Maintenance The Mayor and City Council unanimously directed staff to move forward with proposing Exterior Property Maintenance Codes. They agreed that public-private partnerships to help people in need was an important focus as well as to have the Codes proposed and adopted in order to have the tools needed if/when properties ultimately fail to come into compliance. Council directed staff to provide the following information at the next work session: • Coordinate and compile assistance programs, including possible public-private partnerships available for owner occupants and for rental owners that provide "qualifying affordable housing." • Define the problem and the scope of the problem — provide examples. • Provide estimated total number of housing units in the NW quadrant and how many total buildings did the survey represent considering that some buildings had multiple violations. • Determine if City should or could offer mitigation guidelines/standards for dead/dirt yards. • Describe how our current and proposed codes compare to the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) via a matrix showing the comparisons. • Explain the rationale behind staffs recommendation for Option 2A — to address one or more violations that can be viewed from the public street. Address why Option 3 was not recommended. List other conditions we considered but rejected; explain why we chose "viewed from the street" versus from adjacent property line and explain what would be the impact of the "visible from the adjacent property" option. • Explain how involuntary enforced compliance would be last resort. Provide an example of a possible enforcement process that focuses on most "dire" conditions, and multiple lesser violations with examples and/or matrix. Staff will bring this information back to Council, targeted within the next 2 months for another work session with the intent of bringing drafted code language for Council consideration prior to the end of the year. Rental Housing • Provide examples of what we are trying to solve, what's working well . . .picture. . costs. . .data. • Clarify specifically what the proposals are trying to accomplish and not. • Clarify the need for and source of the minimum standards. Provide Health Department perspective on issues considered health related, such as; ventilation, sanitation, heating, infestation, etc. • Catalog list of new provisions in order of priority and evaluate need for additional provisions not included, such as door and window locks. Distinguish what revisions are "nice to have" v. revisions that are absolutely "necessary". For instance, having smoke alarms seems more important than having two electrical outlets. • Compare the proposed revisions (via matrix) to those covered in the International Property Maintenance Code and recommend if it is appropriate to adopt a model code versus incorporating into a City Code. • Identify the number of dwellings that would be affected by the new provisions. • Identify sources that would be able to assist owners of low income rental properties comply with the provisions. • Can we estimate how many units will be "taken out" of the City housing inventory if this was implemented? • Explain the criteria for a building being old versus "historic" . • Explain how the updated standards might be "used" by tenants to get out of leases and if the City should include specific regulatory mechanisms for its protection in such disputes. Occupant-limit Enforcement The Over Occupancy Enforcement Program was presented as a general overview. Council direction given was to make changes as needed to continue effective enforcement. 1 . Council seemed generally content. . .even complimentary to staff. 2. Council stressed that if staff encounters problems. . .don't wait to make changes. 3 . The maximum of 3-unrelated adults clearly remains a council priority. The next steps with the proposed revisions to the Rental Housing and Dangerous Building Codes will be to continue with the public out-reach, seeking comments from rental property organizations and CSU. Then staff will bring requested responses back to Council at a second worksession targeted within the next 2 months with the intent of bringing drafted code language for Council consideration prior to the end of the year. Citv of FortCollins FortlleColl PnosgoNeighborhood & Building Services 4 580: Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580; Voice: 970 221 6760 FAX: 970 224 6134 Memorandum To: Mayor & City Council Members Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Greg Byrne, CPES Director Felix Lee, Neighborhood & Building Services Director From: Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager Date: September 13 , 2006 Re: September 12, 2006 Work Session Summary — Property & Building Maintenance Standards Felix Lee presented to Council a proposed recommendation to begin looking at Property & Building Maintenance Standards. Beth Sowder and Teresa Ablao were also present to help answer questions. The Mayor and City Council unanimously directed staff to separate the Property & Building Maintenance Standards as follows: 1 . Proceed to develop needed regulatory tools to better address health, safety, and blight concerns applicable to: • Rental Housing ("habitability" standards) • Unsafe & Blighted Buildings and Premises • Moved-in and Relocated Buildings 2. Review appearance and maintenance in the context of only those cases exhibiting the most dire state of neglect and deterioration related to: • Exterior Premises • Building/Accessory Structure Exteriors All Council members agreed to address egregious situations and the outdated Dangerous Building Code and Rental Housing Standards fast. Council members had some differing opinions about what to address or how far the regulations should go when looking at maintenance and visual appearance issues. Staff was directed to do the following: 1 . Bring back examples of what other communities are doing, particularly how they quantitatively address visual "blight". 2. Offer Council members ride-a-longs so they can observe problems first hand. 3. Get public feedback. �•Y ' �''< gip, �� . ' . ,�. Lill .. , _ 'I Irr ll . . . . . �9�c', `— W� 1IMPM ul 1p 41 _ 1 S f f fy � ti tr . r C' ;� ' a �� • ,.. � 11lI� ram. i wa . - 'T . .-�LL.t 2 I`.� ,ice ti. - '3'- 1. ..' - ^.mil- _ � V . a • - .. .cV • - • 1 Ill FroTre , - • dd • • Sit _ +} �. ::r�. ► C , ti �1 aor r n y�•,� -. � �j11 ;40r.•r,T X�. . , S.,A, h, . . y ,l Imo• f• Y ft �'� '` � � �� •' y�, r�° � 1l�IP'� nrynjfM ► :�`•'", i� " �Y��•1����'�'�"r � •� ,� 1 • � , � may' .-n• SFr � � � 1 t�� i ~ gyp. dr�., . .��- '� ✓. , `. !I � � m lie,! , , - - . J � • C ' t�t. ' ; Y _ 1 ICI t A - I. v k %%I Flu . . J Ida r tie. ♦ v. ..Nil, Id Id IN AM•. IN _._ — 1 . A r • � arm . .i: Nq dd,d, dad rL If IIN ydims � Id dddddddd yddd� ` 1. AIN �� •� i �. f 4 �.. I . !p. . l", s, If i > n� did Ito N, .y lot NIL dd S. y» ok ,� • �' Poll ... _ A,I IN 4 ,� �. Nt did IN 4 11i r I r _ VP1-14 Itt, It IF do r � ^'3t I IS TIT IT -14 Lam._ IIIIIIIT. TIIIIIII OIL 1 kjl 41 y, tif ` , yam* .r- d' •: T • • I �� -� ' � 1 yL.1 S, 1 H NO S AMM Pw •+ii �� 6 �1 >. :34r :l. . ATTACHMENT 12 On - Line 1 . Should the City develop landscaping standards that would prevent bare dirt or dead yards? Yes: 139 ( 37 . 8% ) No: 229 ( 62 . 2% ) Ia . What is a reasonable time to "fix" a dirt or dead yard? 2 weeks: 8 ( 2 . 4% ) 30 days: 50 ( 15 . 3 % ) 90 days: 94 ( 28 . 7% ) 6 months or more : 175 ( 53 . 5% ) Comments : view 162 comments ( opens in new window) • On - Line Survey Results 2 . Should the City develop codes to address dead trees and shrubs? Yes : 156 ( 42 . 4 % ) No : 212 ( 57 . 6 % ) 2a . What is a reasonable time to remove dead trees and shrubs? 2 weeks : 24 ( 7 . 4% ) 30 days : 64 ( 19 . 6 % ) 90 days : 86 ( 26 . 4% ) 6 months or more : 152 ( 46 . 6% ) Comments : view_137 comments ( opens in new window ) • On - Line Survey Results 3 . Should the City develop standards that would address broken and falling fences? Yes : 151 (41 . 0% ) No: 217 ( 59 . 0 % ) 3a . What is a reasonable time to fix or remove a fence? 2 weeks : 24 ( 7 . 4% ) 30 days : 66 ( 20 . 3 % ) 90 days : 81 ( 24 . 9% ) 6 months or more: 154 ( 47 . 4% ) 3b. What types of materials should be acceptable for fences? Fencing planks: 138 ( 43 . 7% ) Scrap plywood : 8 ( 2 . 5% ) Tin or metal : 6 ( 1 . 9 % ) other: 164 ( 51 . 9% ) Comments: view 184 comments ( opens in new window ) On - Line Survey Results 4 . Should the City develop standards that would address peeling paint that is not water proof and could cause a building to rot? Yes: 101 ( 27 . 4% ) No : 267 ( 72 . 6 % ) Comments : view 104 comments ( opens in new window ) 5 . Should the City develop standards to address old, rundown outbuildings which cre ate eyesores in neighborhoods and may also be a safety hazard ? Yes : 159 ( 43 . 2 % ) No : 209 ( 56 . 8 % ) Comments : view 113 comments ( opens in new window ) 6 . Should the City develop standards to address old and bad roofing or gutters that could allow water damage? Yes : 98 ( 26 . 6 % ) No : 270 ( 73 . 4% ) Comments : view 98 comments ( opens in new window On - Line Survey Results 8 . Should the City develop standards to address unsafe conditions at an owner-occupied home ? Yes : 121 ( 32 . 9 % ) No : 247 ( 67 . 1 % ) ommen s: view 110 comments ( opens in new window ) 9 . Should the City develop standards to address how water drains away from a house to prevent erosion and stagnant water? Yes : 127 ( 34 . 5 % ) No : 241 ( 65 . 5 % ) Comments : view 87 comments ( opens in new window ) 10 . Should the City require property owners to submit a plan for any vacant buildings that are boarded up for more than 6 months? Yes : 141 ( 38 . 3 % ) No : 227 ( 61 . 7% ) Comments : view 78 comments ( opens in new window ) 11 . Should the City only regulate property maintenance standards on rental property? Yes : 86 ( 23 . 4% ) No : 282 (76 . 6% ) Commen IF view 139 comments ( opens in new ATTACHMENT 13 Exterior Property Maintenance Small Task Group of Stakeholders General comments and suggestions : • Start with recommended codes (if any) that are between the null option and level 1 (very minimal) in order to only address the really bad properties first. • Utilize a matrix or score sheet (Doug offered to work on a draft of what this might look like) that would look at the totality of the situation; "whole property audit", so only properties with really bad problems or multiple problems would be addressed. Have this score sheet available on-line . • Don' t use the word "blight" • Look at each situation individually — allow extra time or defer penalties for people when affordability is an issue or for seasonal items (e.g. December isn 't a good time to plant grass) • Utilize Larimer County' s assistance program • Do an educational period for one year before enforcement begins (this will help figure out how many problems exist and if the City needs to allocate more money to the County' s assistance program) • At least one person felt that this is not the role of government — there are some circumstances when public policy should affect private property (i . e. sign code, commercial landscaping requirements, habitability code for rentals), but this may be overstepping the role of government • This will apply to all properties — residential and commercial • Want questions answered : Who will pay for this? Who will enforce this? • Want staff to present options but to also include the "null option" • Make sure words are defined well (e . g. "deteriorated") • Be sure to include education about options and good ways to fix the problems • Want the City to look at other possible funding and loan programs such as a "Local Development Corporation" Other suggestions from task group members after the meeting_ • Board of Realtors and affiliates willing to help people in need (like the program that used to exist with First National Bank) • Do an award program for nice yards — find sponsors • Take a tour of some of the bad problems in Fort Collins or provide some addresses so the task group members can drive by and look at them first hand. • Need the numbers — how many of these really do exist (total). Beth Sowder - property maintenance Page 1 ATTACHMENT 14 From : " Reckling" <jfreckling@comcast. net> To : "City Neighborhood Services Beth Sowder" < bsowder@fcgov. com > Date : 2/11 /2008 9 : 04 : 41 AM Subject: property maintenance His I appreciated your column in this morning 's paper. I have sent the following message to our district 2 council person , as well as to you . Thanks for all your hard work in maintaining our city ! I want you to know that I am in support of property maintenance codes . As a former board member of Nelson Farm HOA, I worked hard to accomplish our covenant revision that provides some minimum standards in our area . The fact that we were able to collect approval signatures of 67% of approximately 300 homeowners speaks for itself. Nelson Farm is an area that is being revitalized . Many homeowners have invested considerable resources in updating their homes ( kitchens , baths , roofs , etc. ) , and we have a number of new young families who value the nearby schools and really nice swimming pool area . However, we still are having some problems with a few properties in our area , and an issue that I would like to see enforced is a minimum standard of back yard appearance and use. I 'm well aware that people want to consider their back yard their private place , but in a neighborhood with split level and two story homes , it is easy to see into others' back yards . A view of weeds , piles of building materials , and bare dirt is not a pleasant sight, and certainly detrimental to any potential home buyer. On our street ( Nelson Lane) , we have particular problems with some of the properties in Lemay Estates (located between our homes and Lemay Ave. ) . One of those is a veritable junk yard . Tenants in other homes carry out activities one doesn't normally find in town . . . riding ATV's , snomobiles , piling stinky grass without turning it for compost, building "campfires" near our wood fences , and practicing crossbow shooting with our fence as a backdrop. I think these people think they live out in the country and don't think about our back yards being much smaller than theirs , our decks being 15 feet from the property line , etc. I 'm aware that there are two messages above. . . one concerning property maintenance, and another concerning inappropriate in -town activities , but they seem to go hand -in -hand in this particular neighborhood . Neighbors on Nelson Lane have dealt with these issues in a variety of ways. . . calling police if activity is illegal , talking with homeowners directly when they don 't feel threatened in doing so, reporting issues to the HOA. However, the junk property has NOT been cleaned up, and the other issues just keep recurring . . . like the Energizer bunny ! : --( Thanks for listening . . . I 'd be happy to talk with you if you wish . JoAnn and Fred JoAnn & Fred Reckling 3261 Nelson Lane Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 204-0415 jfreckling@comcast. net Beth Sowder - Maintenance of Homes Standards Page 1 From : "susan schlingman11 <sschling@comcast. net> To : < bsowder@fcgov. com > Date : 2/11 /2008 9 : 16 : 28 AM Subject : Maintenance of Homes Standards Dear Beth , I read your article this morning in the FC Coloradoan about the city's establishing standards for neighborhood upkeep. Though I am in favor of the concept, I do worry about how it would be enforced , and its impact on families, especially those of us retired and living on fixed (and dwindling ) incomes , who are finding projects such as repainting and new roofs absolutely beyond our means for the time being . A related issue which you might include in considerations as far as upkeep is cracked and crumbling sidewalks . This is a problem just beginning to emerge in my neighborhood (west Troutman Parkway area ) . I called the city maintenance department last summer about this, and was told that, even though the city puts in the sidewalks , it is the homeowner's responsibility to repair cracks and damage. Further investigation revealed that this would cost several hundred dollars - per homeowner. Paint, roofs , gutters , fences , sidewalks - how does one prioritize? I will follow the city's work on this plan with interest and support. Respectfully, Susan Jay Schlingman Beth Sowder - Maintenance stds for homes in Ft. Collins Page 1 From : " Mark W. Johnson" <gilsdorf@frii . com > To : < bsowder@fcgov. com > Date : 2/ 12/2008 8 : 32 : 09 AM Subject: Maintenance stds for homes in Ft. Collins Beth : Your article in Coloradoan today, 2- 11 -08 . Here is some feedback : I understand the concern about how many homes in Ft. Collins are unkempt and trying to do something to correct the situation . The public reaction will no doubt bristle with the idea of the City imposing their standards on owners . Here are some ideas : Survey the homes that are unkempt. Are they owner occupied or are they rentals? What percentage of each . Then you will know who will have to respond to city standards. Rentals : I have long thought that the City needs to address rentals of single family homes . Rentals are a business within a residential area . As such , the City should require all rental property to be identified and registered with the City. A special zoning should be created that reflects that rentals are commercial in nature , such as RR - Residential Rental . All such properties should be subject to City covenants that spell out how these properties are to be maintained , with fines for landlords for non-compliance . Owner occupied : Most owner homes are maintained , with some in outstanding condition . I can always spot the owner homes versus the rentals. Reading the proposed issues , such as dirt yards , fences , chipped paint, roofs and gutters , there will have to be a lot of specificity, so as not to appear overbearing or discriminatory. Clutter should also be addressed , such as yard debris, old furniture , and inoperable vehicles that are visible from the street. Some owners may not have the means to address paint, fences , and roofs and gutters , in which case assistance in some form may be necessary. Good luck on the project, it will certainly bring out the opinions. We have a nice town , and I for one , will look forward to seeing the improvements . am Mark W. Johnson , I live outside City limits at 4835 Terry Lake Rd . ( Hwy 1 ) . 1 own Gilsdorf Garage at Shields and Mulberry . Beth Sowder - Home Maintenance Standards Page 1 From : " Betsy Graves" <tombetsygraves@comcast. net> To : < bsowder@fcgov. com > Date : 2/ 12/2008 10 : 02 : 40 AM Subject: Home Maintenance Standards Hi Beth ! appreciated your article in yesterday's Coloradoan regarding city standards for home maintenance. I will be interested in learning more about the staff presentation at the City Council meeting on the 21 st by reviewing the material on the web site you referenced . I would like to offer some input as a long-time resident and homeowner in our fair city. My husband and I have owned our current home in a moderate-income neighborhood for 17 years. Many of the homes on our street are becoming rentals, and a primary concern we have about that is the deterioration of home maintenance that accompanies this trend . Renters do not invest in home maintenance - even those required by existing city ordinances - to the detriment of all their neighbors . My husband and I have assumed responsibility for shoveling the drive and walks of the single mom who lives next door because we believe that she has the most difficult of roles in our society. We understand that many renters are folks who require neighborly assistance with such things, including the elderly and disabled . However, several of our renter neighbors are young people who are perfectly capable of caring for the property where they reside. I understand that establishing and enforcing ordinances that would raise the bar for home maintenance is not an easy task , especially given all the significant challenges facing our city leadership . Nevertheless , I encourage pursuit of this issue because the homeowners of many neighborhoods in Fort Collins like ours are at risk of losing the value of our chief financial investment, along with risks of physical safety that accompany the deterioration of the neighborhood . I suggest that a formal process for imposing responsibility and consequences upon the owner of the property be strengthened , and recourse made available to residents to pursue prompt response. Thank you for asking for input on this issue. Sincerely, Betsy Graves 2033 Churchill Ct. Beth Sowder-Re: Fwd:Council SAR#1090%Prope maintenance standards._._._ page 1_: From: Beth Sowder To: Darin Atteberry Subject: Re: Fwd: Council SAR#10901 Property maintenance standards Shades of Boulderll Can't believe my eyes] Why there's a notice in the paper that maintenance codes will be discussed AGAIN on Feb 26. Kind of buried in the Neighborhood column. How can that be? When you debated this last time you stirred up a hornet's nest and aborted the discussion by charging your staff to discover sources of funding that could help residents with maintenance expenses,compile a list of same, and prepare a plan of how to make this Info available to residents.That was a good idea. Many of us thought that was the end of your high handed deliberation on this matter. But we always have to remember past experience when council, staff and planners skulk off into the grass to plan an end run around the common folks. I see from the calendar of agendas that you plan to take action on the Ext Prop Maint Code during the April Fool's Day meeting. That doesn't give much time for public comment. I guess that means you think you can pass it with little more public input. The very notion of establishing such a code is elitist and you should limit your deliberation to health and safety issues. I used to think is was just silly when people said FC wanted to be like Boulder. Its not silly any more, its sad. What is the matter with you guys? Have none of you been in a predicament when you didn't have enough money to put shoes on the kids, food on the table and maintain the house the way you would like? If not, you need to get out among 'em and have them tell you about hard times. My opinion is that most property owners maintain their homes to the best of their ability. You-their neighbors-are not privy to their financial stresses. You have no business telling people when they have to paint or roof their housel If you continue on this course, you deserve the drubbing you're going to get. Beth Mitchell,40 yr resident, property owner, 1508 West Mountain Ave.