Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/14/2005 - NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY ISSUES / THREE UNRELATED ORDI DATE: June 14, 2005 STAFF: Darin Atteberry WORK SESSION ITEM Steve Roy FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Tess Heffernan SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Neighborhood Quality Issues/Three Unrelated Ordinance. This session will focus on revisions to the City's current ordinance prohibiting more than three unrelated persons from inhabiting a single dwelling unit. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council agree with the proposed problem statement? 2. Should staff present for Council's consideration a proposed ordinance revising the City's regulation against more than three unrelated persons in a dwelling unit along the lines outlined below? 3. What criteria should be used to determine eligibility for a permit to house four unrelated persons, e.g., minimum square footage, number of bedrooms, off-street parking, etc.? 4. What, if any, changes should be made to the ordinance as proposed by staff? BACKGROUND This is the latest in a series of discussions that Council has held at work sessions and regular meetings regarding neighborhood quality of life. At its most recent previous discussion on April 26, 2005, the Council directed staff to present for Council's consideration an outline of a revised prohibition against more than three unrelated persons inhabiting a single dwelling unit, together with a definition of the problem statement that the ordinance is intended to address. Problem Statement In staffs view, the problem to be addressed by the Council is the changing quality of life in some single-family neighborhoods due to the proliferation of rental properties in those neighborhoods. This includes both the physical deterioration of some of the properties as well as an increase in the incidence of nuisance violations in the neighborhoods. City Code enforcement data for 2004 illustrates the differences between nuisance violations occurring in owner-occupied and rental housing. Rental units make up 43% of the housing stock in Fort Collins yet account for 60.4% of all nuisance violations. Conversely, owner-occupied June 14, 2005 Page 2 units account for 39.6% of violations. In looking at just the Public Nuisance Ordinance (PNO) data, rental properties account for 78% of violation notices. Revised Three Unrelated Ordinance Staff has previously recommended that any revised version of the three unrelated ordinance be made a civil infraction, so as to make the ordinance more enforceable, and Council has agreed. In addition, staff recommends that the basic prohibition against more than three unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit should apply to all single-family dwelling units unless a permit has been issued allowing four unrelated persons or unless the dwelling unit is within a boarding house that has been certified as such by the City. The rationale for revising and enforcing the three unrelated ordinance is that enforcement of the regulation will bring existing units into compliance and deter the wholesale conversion of additional owner-occupied housing to rental housing in particular neighborhoods since the rental income to be derived from such houses will be substantially reduced. As noted earlier, a system can also be developed whereby dwelling units that can safely accommodate four unrelated persons can apply for a special permit for that purpose. Concerns have been raised that this system could increase the number of rentals in some single family neighborhoods. To deal with this concern, the City will need to continue to rely heavily upon enforcement of nuisance laws in all neighborhoods. In addition, enforcement staff will have the option to revoke any permit should nuisance violations prove to be a problem. A separate question that was raised at the last work session is whether the City can and should prohibit homeowner associations in the City from imposing a more stringent regulation upon the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a dwelling unit. Staff believes that the City should not impose such a regulation for three reasons. First, it is difficult to identify a legitimate municipal purpose to be served by such a regulation because a prohibition against more than two unrelated persons would serve the same purpose as the City's prohibition against more than three unrelated persons, namely, promoting owner-occupied housing and reducing nuisance violation. Second, certain neighborhoods have a legitimate need for a more stringent regulation. The Stonehenge Subdivision, for example, has very narrow streets that cannot accommodate the additional parking that would be required for more than two unrelated occupants per dwelling. Third, a survey of City neighborhoods and homeowner associations across Colorado indicates that less than one percent of homeowner associations have a more stringent regulation. Thus, the need for prohibiting more stringent regulations is nominal. Provisions of the Revised Ordinance Attached is a description of the proposed revised ordinance that would prohibit more than three unrelated persons from residing in a single dwelling unit. It should be noted that an additional category has been added to the definition of"family" which would allow "functional families" to occupy a single dwelling unit. A "functional family" is defined as a group of persons plus their children "having a relationship that is permanent and distinct in character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive family unit". The definition of functional family would not include any society, club, fraternity, sorority, association or lodge, organization June 14, 2005 Page 3 or common living arrangement of a group of students or other individuals that is temporary in nature and established primarily for economic purposes. At the conclusion of this work session, staff will be seeking direction on whether to bring forward a regulation along the lines described above. Financial Impact Improving the current ordinance will enable the City to better enforce, investigate and prosecute violations. This does not come without some cost. A general estimate for additional staff to implement these services is as follows: 1 FTE Housing Inspector $ 30,000 one time 77,000 ongoing (salary, benefits, vehicle and equipment) Contractual Hearing Officer $ 9,000 ongoing (hourly fees) Hearing administrative costs 3,000 ongoing TOTAL $ 30,000 one time $ 89,000 ongoing Additionally, property owners who wish to obtain a permit for four unrelated occupants will incur some costs. Based on an analysis of similar programs, staff estimates a permit application fee of$75 and an inspection fee of$150. The resulting "Certificate of Inspection and Occupancy Permit' will be valid for three years or until there is a change in ownership, whichever is sooner. That same owner may renew the permit upon re-inspection for $100 if he/she is eligible based on nuisance history. It is staffs expectation that as much as half of the ongoing cost ($89,000) will be covered by fees and, to some extent, fines. For example, the recent Economic and Market Study estimates over 1,000 households currently violating the three-unrelated ordinance. If, for illustrative purposes, half of those homes (500) opted to apply for a permit for four occupants over the next three years, the revenue generated from permit fees and inspections would total an average of $38,000/year. ATTACHMENTS 1. Outline of Proposed "3 Unrelated Ordinance" June 14, 2005 Page 4 Staff presentations for Work Session items have been video taped in advance of this meeting. The presentations will be broadcast on City Cable Channel 27 at the following times: Thursday,June 9 6:00 p.m. Sunday,June 12 10:00 a.m. &8:30 p.m. Friday,June 10 4:30 p.m. Monday,June 13 10:00 a.m. Saturday,June 11 10:30 a.m. & 10:30 p.m. Tuesday,June 14 4:00 p.m. Videos of the presentations will also be available via a high-speed internet connection at www.fccov.com after 5:00 p.m. on Friday,June 10. ATTACHMENT OUTLINE OF PROPOSED "3 UNRELATED ORDINANCE" I. General Occupancy limit: The occupancy limit for single family dwellings should be stated affirmatively and separately in the Land Use Code as follows: a. Maximum Occupancy The maximum occupancy in a single family dwelling unit shall be one family, as that term is defined in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code. b. Exceptions. The following shall be exempt from the maximum occupancy limit established in subsection (a) of this section: boarding houses for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the city; dwellings regularly inspected or licensed by the state or federal government, including but not limited to group homes, senior centers, health or custodial facilities; and dwellings used as housing for domestic violence victims. The definition of family contained in 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code would then be amended as follows: Family shall mean an individual living alone or either of the following groups living together as a single housekeeping unit and sharing common living,sleeping,cooking and eating facilities: (1) Any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly authorized custodial relationship; or (2) Up to three (3) unrelated adults, or four (4) unrelated adults if permitted by the city under Section_, and their related children, if any; or (3) A functional family consisting of a group of adults and their children having a relationship that is permanent and distinct in character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive,family unit. A functional family shall not include a society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge or other organization, nor shall it include any common living arrangement of a group of students or other individuals that is temporary in nature or established primarily for economic purposes. II. General Penalties for violations of occupancy limit A. Civil infraction procedure • tickets for violations with a hearing before a magistrate (similar to parking services procedure) • fines ranging from $100 to $1000-each day a separate violation • lien on property or referred to collections for non-payment of fines • Appeal to the Municipal Court or City Manager B. Criminal • for repeated(3 or more)violations of occupancy limit, noncompliance with civil fine payment or noncompliance with administrative orders or sanctions • fines up to $1000 • up to 180 days jail as possible penalty C. Who could be held liable • owner • property manager/agent • occupant/tenant • any combination above depending on the actor's culpable mental state III. Permits allowing 4 unrelated people to occupy a single family dwelling A. Minimum requirements for issuance • description and location of dwelling unit(s) • name, address, and telephone of the owner(s) • designation of a property manager and/or local agent,their name,address and phone number • floor and site plan of dwelling unit(s) • pre-permit inspection by the City to ensure the dwelling unit: • has three off-street parking spaces • has four bedrooms • has two separate bathrooms containing tub or shower,lavatory,toilet stool • meets International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) regarding Sec.304"Exterior Structure";Sec.305 "Interior Structure";Sec.306 "Handrails and Guardrails" • meets the requirements of Chapter 4 — Light, Ventilation and Occupancy Limitations; and Table 404.5 Minimum Area Requirements: • meets the requirements of Chapter 5 — Plumbing Facilities and Fixtures, Chapter 6 — Mechanical and Electrical, Chapter 7 — Fire Safety and Egress • safety certifications of gas heating equipment and electrical systems from City licensed contractor • consent of permittee allowing subsequent inspection by the City with proper notice or warrant • permittee must make all records/books (including lease) available for inspection by the City upon complaint • acknowledgment that permit is non-transferable - must file new application within 30 days of change of ownership and that permit is to be posted on the premises • payment of all application, inspection, permit and certificate fees B. Additional factors the permitting authority (Neighborhood and Building Services Director) may consider in the granting, denying or renewing an application: • Previous history or pattern of applicant and/or applicant's tenants at any of the applicant's properties of: • failing to abate or correct violations after ordered by enforcement official or hearing officer • building and fire code violations • land use code violations • noise violations • other code violations (weeds/rubbish, criminal activity) • failing to obtain permit allowing 4 unrelated IV. Fees/costs to administer 4 unrelated permit application system: A. Application fee • $75 process fee (background research, e.g., legality of dwelling unit per zoning/building codes, PNO/nuisance abatement status) • If the permit is granted, the permit is valid for 3 years or change in ownership, whichever is sooner B. Inspection fee • $150 per scheduled inspection;$200 for re-inspection in the event of"no-show" by applicant or applicant rep. • Inspection to assess possible violations and corrections to comply with zoning, housing/building codes • Fee for any necessary followup inspections to be determined C. Permit renewal inspection fee • Same owner may renew permit upon re-inspection for $100; owner and occupants must have complied with the terms of the permit and applicable codes, regulations and laws D. Permit fee • actual cost to administer regulatory scheme E. Added FTE Housing Inspector Costs One Time - $30,000 Annual Ongoing - $77,000 V. Administrative procedure for suspending, revoking or denying renewal of permits allowing 4 unrelated to occupy a single family dwelling A. Notice of violation given by director to the owner, property manager and tenants • opportunity to correct/abate • opportunity for hearing B. Hearing before the director to determine if violation exists and appropriate penalty; penalties can include fine, suspension or revocation of permit C. Appeal to Municipal Court or City Manager VI. Code Changes Necessary: • amend the Land Use Code to affirmatively state the occupancy limit • refine certain definitions within the LUC. • amend the LUC to state that a violation of the occupancy limit is a civil infraction • amend Section 1-15 to allow for civil procedure/hearing officer • amend the PNO to allow for civil violations as well as misdemeanors • amend 3.8.3 of the LUC regarding home occupancy permits.