Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/24/2009 - UNRECORDED/NON-APPROVED RENTAL DWELLING UNITS DATE: February 24, 2009 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Felix Lee FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Mike Gebo Teresa Ablao SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Unrecorded/Non-Approved Rental Dwelling Units. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council adopted the Supplemental Rental Housing Provisions into the City Code on October 21, 2008. At that time, City Council postponed discussion of unrecorded and non-approved rental dwelling units. City Code Section 5-261 concerns the creation of rental dwelling units by converting a single-family dwelling to a duplex or multiple-family rental dwelling units without City approval. It also includes procedures related to collecting associated unpaid fees and sales taxes, issuing required building permits and Certificates of Occupancy. In postponing this issue, Council asked staff to conduct further outreach within the community, involve those who will be affected by the code changes and provide options for addressing the issue. Council directed staff to consider options and incentives to identify the multi-family rental dwelling units for which the City has no record of the conversion. Council also asked staff to recommend a process for bringing these units into compliance and, if appropriate, create incentives for owners to comply with the City's building health and safety standards. Council's primary objective in modifying this Code is to ensure that any single family housing units that have been converted into multiple rental dwelling units comply with all the City's standards for safe and sanitary conditions. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Are there areas of concern that staff has not addressed? 2. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposal? 3. Based on the information presented and discussed, is Council ready to consider proceeding with an incentive option for identifying and ensuring that rental housing units comply with basic health and safety standards? February 24, 2009 Page 2 BACKGROUND Problem to address: Non-Approved rental housing - Any housing unit for rent that has not been approved for such use and/or has not been inspected for minimum health and safety standards by the City. City Council identified several issues to address regarding non-approved rental housing units. Issues include: • Some non-approved units exist within zones which do not allow such a use; • Some non-approved units have unsafe or substandard conditions; • The City does not have a count or an inventory of the rental properties with two or more housing units which have not been approved for use or inspected by the City; and • There is currently no practical way to identify non-approved rental housing units except by complaint. Generally, rental housing units are safe and clean. Single-family homes and most multiple-family housing(three or more units) were constructed under the City's building code that includes review of the building plans, inspections, and a certificate of occupancy if buildings met the required standards and the fees had been paid. Since the 2007 occupancy limit Code revisions went into effect, rental housing complaints have revealed serious health and safety violations. Examples include: • Vermin infestation; • Excessive mold growth; • Lack of basement bedroom emergency escape windows; • No smoke or carbon monoxide alarms; • Hazardous electrical systems; and • Unsafe heating systems. Relatedly, staff has discovered a number of single family homes that were converted to duplexes and/or multiple family units but were never reviewed, inspected or improved for such use. Many of these non-approved rental housing units are believed to be converted basements of single-family homes. Because they were never reviewed, many may not have the required safety features that are required by City Code. Key among these safety features are "emergency escape/rescue" bedroom windows which are large enough and low enough for most occupants to use for escaping or for facilitating rescue access by emergency responders in the event of an emergency such as a fire or other immediate danger. Current City Code requires that a property owner obtain a certificate of occupancy (CO) before renting any portion of a building containing two or more rental housing units. Also, the property owner must have paid all applicable impact fees and taxes in order to receive the CO. Fees and taxes for creating an additional dwelling unit include: February 24, 2009 Page 3 Impact fees: offset costs to provide public services and infrastructure(Utility Plant Investment Fee and Capital Improvement Expansion Fees for parks, police, fire, library, streets, etc.) Development review fees: recover costs to process, review and record applications for land development activities and related permits. Taxes: relate to sales and use taxes based on construction value. Staff is aware that there are a number of unrecorded/non-approved rental dwelling conversions within the community; however, there is no comprehensive inventory of these units. Based on candid discussions with rental housing industry representatives, a substantial number of non- approved rental housing units exist. According to the 2007 census data,approximately 80%(1,400)of two-family houses(duplexes)are occupied by renters. However, it is unknown how many renter-occupied housing units have not been reviewed and approved by the City. The objective is to achieve minimum health and safety standards for all rental housing consisting of two or more rental housing units. Approach to Solving the Problem Staff has developed a proposed three-step process to bring existing unrecorded and unapproved rental dwelling units into compliance with City Code: STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND RECORD Identify the rental housing units that have never received a certificate of occupancy or equivalent at the time of the unit's creation. These units were never reviewed and approved for this use. The City will need the cooperation of owners in order to do a comprehensive and accurate inventory of these dwelling units and determine if they comply with current health and safety standards. The City has incomplete archival original documents in some cases,particularly for those that were created before the early 1960s. Some converted units were sold to new owners who assumed that these units were legitimate and complied with all the necessary City requirements. Staff is proposing a period of time within which property owners can voluntarily identity and disclose to the City previously unrecorded rental property that has two or more units, in the form of the following two options: A. A voluntary application period of twelve months from effective date of the ordinance; OR B. A voluntary application period of twenty-four months from effective date of the ordinance. February 24, 2009 Page 4 With both options, to the City will provide an incentive for property owners to voluntarily disclose these rental properties. If property owners voluntarily provide this information within the application period, they will be charged a$200 application fee but will not have to pay any impact fees or City building permit fees for work done in the past when the units were created. If the property owner does not report the information in the application period and cannot demonstrate to the Building Official or Building Review Board that s/he could not reasonably have known of the voluntary application period,the owner will be assessed all applicable building permit,development review and impact fees at rates which were in effect at the time the deficiency is identified. To participate in the voluntary application period and deter those wanting to avoid paying the fees for very new conversions, the added rental housing unit(s) must have been created or converted by midnight December 31, 2008. Once the application has been submitted and the preliminary inspection completed, the time allowed to make any corrections will be based on the degree of urgency of the health/safety violations as well as zoning requirements (Step 3 below). STEP 2: INSPECTION Once the property information has been collected and inventoried by the City, staff will conduct an inspection of the property. The inspection is for two purposes: a. To review for compliance with the City's zoning requirements. b. To review for compliance with the City's health and safety standards. STEP 3: BRING UNITS INTO COMPLIANCE Following inspection, staff will determine if the unit(s) are in compliance with current Zoning and Health and Safety Standards. Each unit will be required to be in compliance with all standards. Check Zoning and Site Requirements If the property does not comply with the City's zoning requirements for permitted uses,an order will be delivered notifying the owner to stop using the property as a multi-family rental unit and convert back to the original single-family dwelling unit or convert to an acceptable use in that zone. If the property does comply with zoning permitted use requirements, the next step would be to review the on-site requirements and any needed public improvements(e.g.,public sidewalk repairs, public street tree replacement, minimum on-site parking spaces, alley improvements, etc.) If the property does not fully comply, the Neighborhood Building Services staff will work with the property owner to develop a reasonable timeframe within which to make the improvements and changes to the site that comply with City standards. Such timeframes would be similar to those employed currently when zoning violations are identified. Check Occupant/Public Health and Safety Requirements. All units must be brought into compliance with the City's health and safety standards for rental dwelling units. If an owner needs to make corrections, the City will utilize its existing process and time schedule to ensure the corrections are made in a timely manner. If an owner disagrees with the February 24, 2009 Page 5 need for particular improvements or the time frame allowed for making such improvements,he/she can appeal the order of the Building Official to the Building Review Board.Any construction which occurs as a result of these corrections will be subject to current building permit requirements and permit fees. If the owner fails to make the required improvements within the requisite period of time, he/she will be subject to the issuance of a citation and the imposition of penalties as set forth in the City Code for civil and criminal penalties, depending on the nature of the violation not corrected. The housing industry, led by representatives of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors and the Colorado Apartment Association,actively collaborated with City staff to develop these steps and the incentive program to get property owners to disclose and record their rental properties(Step 1). The industry strongly agrees that all rental housing must comply with minimum health, safety and zoning standards. Failure to Apply During Voluntary Period After the voluntary application period, if the City finds that a property owner has an unrecorded and non-approved rental dwelling unit,the City will still require that the property owner bring the unit(s) into compliance. However, no waiver of past development, building or impact fees will be made after the voluntary period. The owner would have to pay current fees and taxes, full development review fees, and permit fees based on construction value of the improvements to the unit. An appeal process could be established to create the opportunity for property owners to demonstrate that he/she could not have reasonably known of the voluntary application period. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the steps outlined above and within Step 1, staff recommends Option B - a voluntary application period of twenty-four months from the effective date of the ordinance. Staff believes this is the most equitable balance among: 1. protecting the public interest regarding residents at risk in existing substandard rental housing; 2. protecting the City's financial interests through responsible stewardship of City fees; 3. providing an incentive to foster a longstanding community partnership with owners and the housing industry to encourage widespread and full compliance during the current economic downturn; and 4. allowing a reasonable period of time to make all property owners aware of the program and the need to voluntarily identify the property. TIMELINE 1. Council adopts an option provided or another option. 2. Staff proposes an effective date of six months from date of adoption to allow for effective and comprehensive outreach to notify all interested parties—CSU students, community, housing industry, property owners, property managers and tenants. (Attachment 6) February 24, 2009 Page 6 3. Upon the effective date (six months from adoption), rental property owners begin to submit applications for inspections and Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Staff processes and tracks applications, conducts inspections, and issues certificates of occupancy. 5. Council receives monthly updates of activity related to non-approved rental housing units, to be added to the existing Neighborhood & Building Services monthly activity report. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Fees There are a variety of fees associated with conversion of a single-family home into multiple rental housing units. Impact fees have been assessed and collected for each new rental housing unit since the 1960s. Other fees have been enacted throughout the years. For further explanation of associated fees and a history of fees from 1960- 2008, see Attachment 2. Staffing One dedicated housing inspector handles all housing code related issues for Neighborhood & Building Services. In anticipation of the increased demand for rental housing inspections, all building inspection staff are being trained on the newly adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). With development activity slowing down, existing inspection and support staff will be available to adequately handle the demand. In addition, Neighborhood & Building Services has in place mature permit tracking technology that will help to manage the workload. Costs • Costs to City Any costs are expected to be covered under the current operating budget for Neighborhood & Building Services utilizing: • Current building inspection staff, • Current customer administrative support staff; and • Existing permit tracking technology. Costs for the outreach campaign are also expected to be covered under the current department operating budget. • Costs to property owners • During the voluntary application period - costs per rental housing unit to the property owners will include: (1) a flat application review fee of$200 plus (2) any standard building permit fee and taxes based on the construction value of improvements which are made to bring the unit into compliance. February 24, 2009 Page 7 • After the voluntary application period- costs per rental housing unit to the property owners will include: (1)existing development review fees;(2)any standard building permit fees and taxes based on the construction value of improvements which are made to bring the unit into compliance; and (3) past-due sales tax and impact fees. JURISDICTION SURVEY Staff conducted a phone survey of various jurisdictions,including Boulder,Longmont and Greeley, regarding their approach to non-approved rental housing. The consensus of all jurisdictions surveyed was compliance with minimum habitability standards must be achieved. Some collect past due development fees, some assess fines and penalties. Boulder currently has a rental licensing/recurring inspection program. Boulder city staff shared concerns such as licensing fees not covering costs to administer the program, understaffing, and that the exclusive use of licensed private contractors (who are hired by ownersfor inspections)creates a conflict of'interest. (See Attachment 3 for survey results) PUBLIC OUTREACH Over the past several months, staff has conducted outreach with a variety of interested parties to gather input on both the problem and proposed solutions. Attachment 4 includes notes from several of these meetings. • 11/21/08 Neighborhood & Building Services conducted a workshop in its Landlord Training series on the newly adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code — participants included rental property owners and managers, landlords, members of CSU Legal Services, and citizens. During the workshop, the various parties began discussion about non-approved rental housing units and agrace period to encourage compliance. This initial discussion confirmed to staff the importance of bringing all stakeholders together to develop the options. • 12/16/08 Evening public outreach meeting with staff and representatives from neighborhoods, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Colorado Apartment Association and the general public. The rental industry representatives committed publicly to supporting health and safety compliance for all rental housing and working toward a reasonable and equitable voluntary compliance process. • 1/21/09 Evening outreach meeting with staff, ASCSU Senate and CSU students Staffpresented the proposed revisions to the ASCSUSenate. The feedbackfrom the students was that they are concerned about gelling evicted for exceeding the maximum allowed "three unrelated" occupants in a single-family home, and having to pay a higher rent for housing complying with the occupancy-limit provisions. Some suggested creating a higher February 24, 2009 Page 8 occupant-density zone near campus. Overall, the students can't understand why it should be illegal for having more than the maximum of three people living as a household when the house has more than three bedrooms. • 1/29/09: Building Review Board (See Attachment 4 for minutes) General support was for a longer voluntary compliance period, such as two years; did not support paying current fees after the voluntary period, feeling there would be too many variables of why owners didn't make the voluntary period resulting in a large number of appeals. • Staff hosted several meetings with representatives of the rental housing industry from November 2008 to February 2009. (See Attachment 4 for minutes) It is fair to say that this collaborative effort has been an unprecedented opportunity for promoting a sustainable community. Staff met with representatives from the rental housing industry over a three month period After lengthy open discussion meetings about the City's existing processes and codes related to regulation of rental housing units, staff and the industry are close to consensus. The rental industry has expressed commitment to compliance with minimum health and safely standards and zoning. The remaining issues are: (1) the length of the voluntary compliance period; (2) which fees should be assessed after the voluntary period, and (3) the overriding concern with the current economic conditions and lack offtnancing available for significant corrections. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Staff has compiled some frequently asked questions from property owners and tenants. (Attachment 5) ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Certificate of Occupancy Application Process for all Rental Housing with Two or More Dwelling Units. 2. Fee history table. 3. Jurisdiction survey. 4. Summaries of meetings with representatives of the rental housing industry and minutes from the Building Review Board meeting, January 29, 2009. 5. Frequently asked questions. 6. Proposed public outreach campaign. 7. Power Point presentation. ATTACHMENT 1 Frof t Collins Proposed Certificate of Occupancy Application Process for all Rental Housing with Two or More Dwelling Units During the Voluntary Application Period 1. Application. Owner/applicant submits standard building permit/Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0) application form, including site plan showing all buildings and parking, number of separate dwelling units and number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit. 2. Application Review. City reviews application for appropriate zoning use, parking, and engineering requirements for curbs, gutters, sidewalks and alleys. 3. Application Denied. Application is denied if the dwelling unit is not allowed in the Zone District. Applicant will be informed that the property must revert to single family with a City verification inspection required. 4. Application Approved. Owner/applicant pays application fee of $200.00 per separate dwelling unit. City completes review within ten (10) working days from application. Applicant is eligible to proceed and schedule the site inspection. 5. Site Inspection. Owner schedules the preliminary site inspection within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice to proceed. City performs inspection and identifies items that require correction in order for all .dwelling units within the building to be in, compliance with the adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). 6. No Corrections Required. No violations found. The applicant is issued a C of 0 or a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) depending on any outstanding Engineering or Zoning items. (A TCO signifies that all dwelling units on site are in compliance with the IPMC and may be occupied pending any other City requirements related to public improvements, off street parking, etc. An unconditional C of 0 is issued when these remaining requirements are met.) 7. Corrections Required. The site inspection has identified items that need to be corrected for the dwelling unit(s) to be in compliance with the IPMC. The City will determine the time frame for corrections depending on the life, health and safety violations to be corrected. 8. Building Permit. Owner/applicant obtains and pays for a building permit, if needed for corrections, based on value of the work to be performed. 9. Corrections Made. After items are corrected, the owner/applicant schedules a follow-up inspection. A "passed" inspection signifies that all dwelling units on site 1 Fort of are in compliance with the IPMC and may be occupied. A C of 0 or TCO can be issued as in#6. 10. Corrections Not Made. The building official will determine if an extension can be granted, allowing the owner more time to make the required corrections. Generally, reasonable extensions will be granted depending upon the severity of the life, health and safety violation needing correction. After corrections are made, a second inspection can be scheduled as in 99. 11. Corrections Not Made. If the owner does not make the required corrections within the time frame specified or from an extension or appeal, the separate dwelling use would be ordered to cease and the property reverted to a single family use. 12. Continued Use After Order to Cease. Should the owner continue to use the unrecorded dwelling without the required C of 0, the owner would be issued a summons and the dwelling would be declared an "unlawful property" per the IPMC. After the Voluntary Application Period 13. Hardship Review. Owner/applicant completes application process as in#1 and; a. Does not request a hardship review, the application would continue as in #1- #12. or, b. Does request a hardship review before the Building Review Board (BRB). Owner would request that the application for C of 0 be processed as if the application was made during the voluntary application period. 14. Hardship Granted. The BRB approves of the owner/applicant's request to review the application as if the application was made during the voluntary compliance period. The application process continues as in #4 with development impact fees waived. 15. Hardship Denied. The BRB denied the owner/applicant's request to review the application the same as if it was received during the voluntary compliance period. The owner/applicant would now be subject to current development impact fees for the creation of a new dwelling unit. If the owner continues the application, the process continues at #4 and development impact fees would be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for needed corrections #8 or the issuance of the C of 0 #6. 16. Owner Discontinues Use. Upon receipt of the hardship denied ruling from the BRB, the owner decides that it is too expensive to continue and converts the property back to a single family dwelling. City inspection required within thirty (30) to confirm properly converted back to a single family dwelling. 17. Ultimate Vacation. If the owner fails to obtain the required C of 0 and continues to rent in violation of the IPMC or the Building Official's order to cease use, the City can declare the property "unlawful", order the property to be vacated, and order the disconnection of utilities. 2 City of Fort Collins Anticipated fees for non-approved rental housing dwellings Development Review (DR) Fee Development review fees are for the purpose ofrecovering the costs incurred by the City to process, review and record applications pertaining to land development activities and related permits. Basic DR for two-family dwelling 5200/per rental dwelling unit (for Zoning, Engineering & Planning review) Three or more dwelling units based on current development review fee schedule Building Permit Fee All valuation based on construction value— includes Building Permit inspection and plan review & sales/use tax for City and County. Impact Fees based on current impact fee schedule Offset the cost of providing City services or when rental dwelling unit was created (see attached fee history) Neighborhood Parkland Street Oversizing Latimer County Transportation Water Tap Y Sewer Tap Raw Water y . New Secondary Electric A x Capital Improvement Expansion CIE (include Community Parkland, Police, Fire, Library, Street Oversizing, & General Governmental Services) School District Fee Z N 1 History of City fees for dwelling units (based on a 1,500 basement finish example) Year converted or used & estimated fees Prior to 1965 -0- 1965 Building Permit Fee $ 24 Water Tap Fee $185 Sewer Tap Fee $175 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 35 Total $419 1970 Building Permit Fee $ 24 City Sales/Use Tax $ 30 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 40 Water Tap Fee $185 Sewer Tap Fee $400 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 35 Total $714 1975 Building Permit Fee $ 24 Sales/Use Tax $ 60 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 195 Water Tap Fee $ 650 Sewer Tap Fee $ 515 Raw Water Fee $ 120.96 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 35 Total $1,599.96 2 Year converted or used & estimated fees 1980 Building Permit Fee $ 24 Sales/Use Tax $ 60 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 500 Water Tap Fee $1,210 Sewer Tap Fee $ 515 Raw Water Fee $ 760.32 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 35 Total $2,589.32 1985 Building Permit Fee $ 76.28 Sales/Use Tax $ 82.50 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 500 Street Oversizing $ 255 Water Tap Fee - $ 400 Sewer Tap Fee $1,165 Raw Water Fee $ 345.60 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 279 Total $3,103.38 1990 Building Permit Fee $ 76.28 Sales/Use Tax $ 82.50 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 625 Street Oversizing $ 584 Water Tap Fee $ 490 Sewer Tap Fee $ 830 Raw Water Fee $ 449.28 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 399 Total $3,536.06 3 Year converted or used & estimated fees 1995 Building Permit Fee $ 76.28 Sales/Use Tax $ 82.50 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 813 Street Oversizing $ 584 Water Tap Fee $ 490 Sewer Tap Fee $ 830 Raw Water Fee $ 518.40 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 405 Total $3,799.18 2000 Building Permit Fee $ 76.28 Sales/Use Tax $ 90.00 County Sales/Use Tax $ 24.00 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 956 Street Oversizing $1,113 Water Tap Fee $ 490 Sewer Tap Fee $ 830 Raw Water Fee $1,209.60 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 418 Capital Expansion Fees (5) $1,839 School District Fee $ 484.26 Total $7,530.14 4 Year converted or used & estimated fees 2005 Building Permit Fee $ 213.98 Sales/Use Tax $ 334.13 County Sales/Use Tax $ 89.10 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 1,296 Street Oversizing $ 1,715 Lar. Cnty Trans. Fee $ 113 Water Tap Fee $ 490 Sewer Tap Fee $ 830 Raw Water Fee $ 2,246.40 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 413 Capital Expansion Fees (5) $ 2,334 School District Fee $ 763.03 Total $10,837.64 Year converted or used & estimated fees 2008 Building Permit Fee $ 357.75 Sales/Use Tax $ 681.75 County Sales/Use Tax $ 181.80 Neighborhood Parkland Fee $ 1,407 Street Oversizing ' $ 1,905 Lar. Cmy Trans. Fee $ 180 Water Tap Fee $ 490 Sewer Tap Fee $ 2,069 Raw Water Fee $ 2,246.40 New Secondary Electric Fee $ 787 Capital Expansion Fees (5) $ 2,533 School District Fee $ 1,800 Total $ 14,638.70 5 City of ATTACHMENT 3 wort Collins Non-Approved Rental Dwelling Units with 2 or more units (Duplexes) Jurisdiction Survey 10/17/08 Staff conducted an open (not anonymous)phone survey of the following jurisdictions for information about their current ordinances and outreach regarding non-approved rental dwelling units with two (2) or more units also known as duplexes or triplexes. Their feedback is captured below: Greeley, CO: • They place the burden upon the owner to prove when the use as a duplex was legitimately established. • If Zoning doesn't allow it, owners are "required to remove improvements that create the habitable space". • If not corrected, they issue citations and make the owner pay double permit fees. • They don't have any other fees that are assessed. • They host a real estate training class to alert realtors about checking with the City to be sure they correctly represent a property's use. • They provide a"use verification letter" for$25 if a realtor wants them to research a property. Longmont, CO: • If conversion would have required building permits, the owner is required to obtain them at double the standard cost. • There is a plan review, and owners must pay the appropriate development fees (typically $6,000 to $8,000). • Owners are required to provide letters from licensed electrical and plumbing contractors stating the rough-in work was completed to code. • Final inspections are required. 1 City of Fort Collins Burlington, VT: • They issue a notice of violation under their Zoning ordinances—"change of use without a permit". • They also issue a notice of violation and order to correct under their housing standards for violations such as ceiling height, emergency escape windows, etc. • Once the notice/order is issued, all permit fees are increased as "after the fact permits". • They have a process which allows owners to apply for a variance from current codes for new construction, as long as the minimum housing standards are met. • Fines and penalties are assessed if violations are found in their Zoning and/or housing ordinances. The fines and penalties are generally lower if the dwelling unit has existed for years, or if very swift action is taken to meet all requirements. Higher penalties accrue for more recent construction without permits and cases which require more enforcement effort and time to resolve. • In some cases, safety issues may cause the inspector to require that the dwelling unit be immediately vacated. Their ordinance requires that the property owner is responsible for the tenant's relocation costs, including temporary stays at a motel. • If owner is unable to obtain the necessary permits and/or variances, she/he is required to vacate the unit and return the property to the legal use. Moorhead, MN: • If conversion would have required building permits, the owner is required to obtain them at double the standard cost. • Walls and ceilings may be required to be opened up to check wiring, etc. • They charge an initial administrative penalty of$100 for an unregistered rental housing unit, and that penalty can increase to $2000 without timely cooperation. 2 City of Fort Collins Boulder, CO: • At one point they allowed the homes around the university to be split up into duplexes and triplexes. Conversion fees were paid at that time. (duplexes were not allowed in single family zones, only around the university). • Later they decided to "down-zone" the area around the university because the (population) density was increasing too much. • At that time letters informed owners in that area that they needed to come forward with any duplexes or triplexes. If they came forward, their properties would be "grandfathered" in. Since the fees had theoretically already been paid, there wasn't an "amnesty" period. • This was done in conjunction with rental licensing, so the owners of all rental units had to come forward to be licensed. This essentially "flushed out" all of the duplexes and triplexes. • If an unauthorized duplex is discovered today, it is considered illegal and must be returned to single family use. Fees and penalties are not a consideration. • To return to single family, the stove and refrigerator must be removed, (not the cabinets or sink), and the lock on the dividing door must be removed. • The planning department documents all rentals. • Boulder differentiates between a duplex and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A duplex allows the full occupancy limit for each separate unit. An ADU is like a 'mother-in-law" apartment: it can have all the elements of a regular dwelling, (i.e. sleeping room, bathroom, kitchen, etc.); it does not allow extra-occupancy for that address, only the immediate family; and it is not allowed to be rented out. ADU's are allowed in all zones in the city of Boulder. • Important Notes: o Their occupancy limit is "4 unrelated" in zones around the college; in single family zones it's "3 or a family plus 2". o Boulder found they didn't charge enough for licensing fees to pay for the program. The fee is only $45 every 3 years. o When they started, they had 5 inspectors on staff, but weren't able to sustain the program. Now they license independent inspectors who are then hired by the property owners. o This creates a conflict of interest, because the inspectors are paid by the owners. Thus the general quality of rental housing has diminished because the minimum standards are not being enforced consistently. o They also have an increasing amount of units that are unlicensed, and not inspected, because more owners are not renewing their licenses. o They are understaffed and can't track which properties are failing to renew their licenses. 3 ATTACHMENT 4 FOrt CO«InS Non-Approved Duplexes Meeting Tuesday,November 25, 2008 Those in attendance: Debbie Tamlin, ZTI Group, DebbieQ.ZTlgroup.com Michelle Jacobs, Fort Collins Board of Realtors (FCBR) miacobs@fcbr.org Carrie Ann Gills, Colorado Apartment Association carriegillisQl`rangillis.com Clint Skutchan, Executive VP, FCBR clintafcbr.org Chris Gullian, Affiliated with FCBR& ReMax christheagent a,yahoo.com Jeff Scheick Felix Lee Angelina Sanchez-Sprague The group started with questions about the City's current practices for dealing with un- recorded duplexes and the development of City Code Section 5-261. Felix explained how the Code relative to rental housing and certificates of occupancy had evolved including the most recent Code amendment, Ordinance 109, 2008 effective the end of October 2008. Felix reported that from census data it is estimated there are approximately 1800 two-family dwellings, 80% of which may be unapproved. Carrie Gillis said that number would likely increase due to single-family homes with more than two households. Michelle asked what the process is now when an unapproved duplex is identified. Felix responded immediate compliance of rental standards relative to health and safety as well as an application for a building permit to convert. Appropriate fees would be charged at the time the building permit is issued. (See spreadsheets prepared by Mike Gebo that lists rental- housing standards such as egress windows, CO2 &fire alarms, etc. and what type of conversion improvements might be required—their estimated construction costs and associated Cityfees.). Felix reported that with the beginning of occupancy violation investigations more and more unapproved duplexes have been identified. Michelle asked for information on how the discovery of an unapproved duplex was handled—specifically 505 Locust. He explained how events transpired relative to the case of the two-story unit at 505 Locust. The unit had been purchased by the current property owner who was unaware it was illegal and unapproved. He followed its path through a Building Review Board (BRB) review and a City Council appeal. City Council did not overturn the BRB's decision to allow it to convert to a legal duplex that met all current City Code requirements (including egress windows in basement bedrooms.) A certificate of occupancy was issued for the second unit. The complainant, a neighbor, spoke of appealing in District Court but never followed through with that course. 1 FFrt of The group agreed they share the same objective for units to meet health and safety standards. They share City Council's goals relative to equity and want to help with the development of the best approach for bringing unrecorded units into compliance. They are proponents of offering incentives to comply rather than taking a punitive approach. They asked for clarification of what types of fees would be involved and how it would affect this after-the-fact situation. They asked for a flat fee (considering current fees such as building permit fees, sales & use tax of value of conversion costs, basic development fee in the neighborhood of$200 for remodel versus new construction.) They'd prefer to see costs in the neighborhood of$600 versus up to $15,000. They did express concern with the fact that some units may trigger additional costs such as unpaved alleys, addition of sidewalks, additional parking. They asked for a staff contact to help them get a handle on that issue. Felix suggested Sheri Langenberger, Development Review Center engineering review supervisor. Time allowed for voluntary compliance. They suggest using the term "Voluntary Compliance Period" versus "Amnesty Period". They are proponents of a two-year period or change of ownership whichever comes first. That suggestion is to help mitigate property owner obligations such as one-year leases. They also think it would help the City manage the additional building permit inspection workload. They asked for clarification of what wrapping up the compliance period might look like—does it mean they have the building permit or the work is complete. They asked for enhanced communication methods. They wanted to go above the normal utility billing inserts, Coloradoan stories, mailings to the properties (where only the tenant would get notice, their membership (FCBR and Colorado Apartment Association). They think more brainstorming is required and offered the following initial ideas: • Using CSU & FRCC (Front Range Community College) methods • Purchasing a banner on the Coloradoan website • Mailings or distribute handbills to targeted geographical areas of the city • Identify, with the assistance of Utilities, units with more than one electric meter • Identify properties with more than one mailbox • CSU Housing Fair participation Clint reported concerns expressed by members of participating in correcting unapproved units spawning complaints of occupancy or other violations. Would we records those matters and force compliance? 2 Flirt Collins Action item: • Obtain poster size zoning map with legend for FCBR work. Done. • Send Mike's fee schedule files electronically. They would like copies they can distribute to their members. Angelina will forward the files via pdf. • Clint asked if before the next meeting, the City's position and obstacles to a proposal could be identified as a way for preparing them for discussions at the next meeting. • Develop communication plan. Next meeting. Next meeting is Monday, December 8, 3-4:30 p.m., 281 N. College Conference Room B. 3 �t Collins Non-Approved Duplexes Meeting Friday, December 19, 2008 Those in attendance: Carrie Ann Gills, Colorado Apartment Association carrie�)i Ili s(a frangi Ili s.com Chris Gullian, Affiliated with FCBR & ReMax christheagent a,Yahoo.com Jeff Scheick Felix Lee Felix reported that he'd been working with City Attorney's office staff to develop options for City Council to consider when reviewing voluntary compliance for unapproved dwelling units. The proposal will include voluntary compliance period, fees, eligibility, a definition of compliance, and non-safety related issues such as occupancy or nuisance violations. In addition, staff will prepare two options for the post-voluntary compliance period for collection of impact fees (based on current rates OR based on impact fees and taxes due at the time the units were created or converted.). Open Items for Discussion Chris Gullian reported Michelle Jacobs, who was under the weather, sent her regrets and asked for clarification on two items from the Items for Discussion list that Felix had distributed prior to the meeting. • 2.a Flat Fee—approximately $600 voluntary compliance fee plus standard building permit fees and sales & use tax. She thought from previous discussions the flat fee was $200. Felix reported that the Basic Development Fee (BDF) is $200. Building Permit and sales & use tax would be an additional amount. • 6.a.i Complaints during "Voluntary Compliance Grace Period"—If found by complaint (involuntary)—lost of eligibility and all impact fees and taxes apply to when first used/converted as rental dwelling unit. Concern was raised about the intent. What if found during the period while they are sharing information on voluntary compliance with the community? Will the responsible party lose all eligibility for voluntary compliance? Chris said the idea of private licensed rental inspectors was raised at the community outreach on December 16. Carrie reported she had spoken to her counterpart in Boulder about their program. Boulder is using ASHI (American Society of Home Inspectors) certified inspectors from the private sector. The BCRHA (Boulder County Rental Housing Association) has seen efficiencies in inspections and the City of Boulder has seen cost savings. The City of Boulder website offered the following information: Their program establishes minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities for rental property: 1 �t Collins • light, ventilation, and heating; • safety from fire; • the use and amount of space for human occupancy; • for safe and sanitary maintenance of dwellings. Tenants, landlords, and the city all play a role in the implementation of this program. All rental property in Boulder is required to maintain a valid rental license in compliance with the Housing Code. The Housing Code establishes minimum standards for the use and safe occupancy of dwellings to protect, to preserve and to promote the physical and mental health of its residents. Obtaining a rental license is the responsibility of the property owner. There are two inspections: the Baseline Inspection and the Electrical Inspection. The Baseline Inspection includes inspections of the exterior, egress, stairways, fire protection and gas appliances, food preparation and storage, lighting and ventilation, general conditions, and plumbing. The Baseline inspection must be completed by licensed rental inspectors. Companies may be licensed to perform one or both parts of this inspection. In order to perform both parts of the Baseline Inspection, companies must have a City of Boulder D-9 license and they provide a link that provides a list of licensed inspectors. An inspector can perform an Electrical Inspection if they have a City of Boulder electrician's license, or an ICC/ICBO Combination Inspectors certification. Felix said the City would be open to exploring that suggestion further. He'll check into the City of Boulder's Rental Licensing Program's private licensed rental inspectors to see if it could work for the City of Fort Collins efforts. Carrie asked if the City would consider a pilot program which would run various types of undocumented units. Types could be: • undocumented duplex-health & safety only, • undocumented duplex-zoning issue, • undocumented duplex-over occupancy, • undocumented duplex triggers additional costs such as unpaved alleys, addition of sidewalks, additional parking At the next meeting, the group plans to refine the communication methods to be used. Chris said Michelle had asked about funding for the use of the Coloradoan's website banner. Felix said the City would be willing to consider funding it. 2 FF6rt of Next Steps Felix reported that City Council will review staffs recommendation at their February 3`d meeting meaning that documents need to be ready in a mid-January timeframe. He'd like to schedule a committee meeting for the first full week in January and wants to work to finalize the committee's work to meet the deadline for City Council agenda materials. Other Felix reported he reviewed the committee's work with the Building Review Board (BRB) at their December 181h meeting. The Board expressed some concerns about "forgiveness" of undocumented units be they rental units or basement finishes. They wondered how "after the fact" inspections and compliance issues would be handled. They had concerns about out-of-state absentee landlords getting proper notification. They thought the "buy" side of home sale transaction (due diligence by buyer's agent) is probably one of the best methods for identifying units for which appropriate permit applications had not been made. Action item: • Chris Guillan will confirm with Michelle Jacobs the items noted above are the only items requiring further discussion/buy-in. • Felix to research the City of Boulder's Rental Licensing Program's private licensed rental inspection system. • Angelina to schedule the next committee meeting. Next meeting date/time PENDING. 3 �t of Non-Approved Duplexes Meeting Thursday, January 8, 2009 Those in attendance: Debbie Tamlin, ZTI Group, DebbieQZTlgroup.com Michelle Jacobs, Fort Collins Board of Realtors (FCBR) mjacobs a,fcbr.org Carrie Ann Gills, Colorado Apartment Association carrie ig llisafrangillis.com Clint Skutchan, Executive VP, FCBR clint a,fcbr.org Mike Salza, Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) msalza a fcgov.com Diane Jones Jeff Scheick Felix Lee Angelina Sanchez-Sprague Michelle said that several (4-5) property owners had volunteered to participate in a "dry run" to establish how well the system can deal with bringing unrecorded dwellings into compliance. Michelle suggested the dry run could be beneficial for everyone involved by providing predictability (issues and fees) for property owners and would promote compliance; help the City identity the types of properties and related issues; and reduce the possibility of unintended consequences. They would like to run the volunteer properties thought the system before City Councils I" reading, if possible, to aid in identifying all relevant information. Michelle suggested the program might also help identify other safety issues not currently outlined as a health & safety issue. Deb thought it would be useful in identifying the most common violations and their associated cost to comply. Diane Jones agreed--put the test cases through the system as soon as feasible. Diane thought, if needed, the 2"d reading could be delayed to Council's March 3`d meeting. Clint recommended the group structure the application and compliance period with an eye toward viable (defensible) alternatives. He'd hate to see improper notification and a person come in one day late in a too short application period. Diane believed it's more a function of what is a reasonable notification period (function of safety). Diane said if the goal is to capture as many folks as possible and we provide a good description of`why a particular time was selected'; we should be okay to proceed. Clint suggested a staggered approach—the best incentives are early in the application period, with the incentives being less so as time elapsed. Diane agreed that providing incentives you'd be more likely to capture all non-compliant units. Mike Salza thought if there were an estimated 1500 undocumented duplexes; how could all inspections take place in the 520 work days in a 2 year period? Felix said he'd been thinking about that and recommended a 6 month application period and two years to comply. That option would get all the applications queue up. Diane suggested a"triage" approach to compliance. In the compliance period the greatest health & safety issues be addressed first, then those moderately so next and finally all other undocumented units addressed last. Mike asked if all 1 City of � Fort Collins rental properties would be going through the program. Felix said yes. Mike suggested the clock for compliance start once the inspection was performed. Felix said the incentives, contingent on City Council's approval, could be fee reduction, grace periods, and perhaps no impact fees. The final outcome, of course, will be determined by what's best for the community. Michelle asked that it be framed to where realtors could appreciate the soundness of the compliance program and would advise investors on its merits and recommend compliance. Mike was curious how the City's health & safety inspection sheet compared to HUD's HQS form. Felix, working with H&S Inspector Derf Green, would provide that information. He said the inspection criteria for health and safety is different than new construction inspections. Felix said the threshold is two or more units and they could exist in more than just single family units. Felix said each unit would is required to have a CO (certificate of occupancy.) Carrie asked what Felix might be referring to. Mike suggested carriage houses or units over a garage. Michelle asked that the affected units be clearly defined. Communication methods were suggested. Initially the group wanted to go above the normal utility billing inserts, Coloradoan stories, mailings to the properties (where only the tenant would get notice, their membership (FCBR and Colorado Apartment Association). They think more brainstorming is required and offered the following initial ideas: • Using CSU & FRCC (Front Range Community College) methods • Purchasing a banner on the Coloradoan website • Mailings or distribute handbills to targeted geographical areas of the city • Identify, with the assistance of Utilities, units with more than one electric meter • Identify properties with more than one mailbox • CSU Housing Fair participation Carrie suggested using the Apartment Association database. With the City's account user id and password, the City of Fort Collins can get access to information provided by members on their membership form. It would still require an effort on the City's part to contact property managers and identify property owners. The group agreed there could be limitations to using Larimer County Assessor property tax insert mailing method because in some cases the mortgage company escrow account staff are the only party being notified for a particular property. Deb suggested targeting geographic areas of the city where the highest concentration of potentially unrecorded units could be found. Diane Jones said at the time occupancy limits were being considered a consultant performed a survey that might help identify affected properties. While that information may be dated, it may provide some useful information. Felix said what Diane was most likely referring to was the Corona Research study. Mike suggested the use of the CSU Everett Real Estate database. They used the area's MLS (Multiple Listing Service) and it should be pretty comprehensive information. Deb thought there 2 City of �.Fort Collins would however, most likely be a cost for that. Contacts are Ron Soares or Steve Laraposa—Mike to provide Ron's contact information. Felix will make contact with Kelly DiMartino to brainstorm other communication avenues. The group wanted to talk about fees. What happens if an inspection triggers other requirements such as the need for additional parking or the addition of sidewalks? Felix reported he had spoken with Engineering Development Review staff. They said the issues need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Diane Jones said the best way might be to provide the basic information with a disclaimer that other related issues could be triggered. Clint said that if there was any fatal flaw with the program being proposed—this was it. By agreeing to comply, property owners could be opening themselves up to higher risk/costs. It could be very "scary" for some folks. And it could be very costly per Deb. Mike said if only single family units were allowed in a particular zone, than folks need to meet that basic requirement before considering coming in for a CO. Felix said he's seen some cases where if a legal use has continued uninterrupted, it's "grandfathered." Michelle said she's heard of areas on East Mountain where that has occurred. She asked for a list of areas where that might have occurred. Felix will provide that information. Clint asked for information—options being developed for City Council that could be shared with the Fort Collins Board of Realtors (FCBR) Governmental Affairs Committee on January 21s`at noon. They will be seeking their recommendation to the Board of Directors. Staff outlined their work timeline—including meeting with City Attorney Office staff next Monday and drafting the materials for City Council February 3`d agenda packet. They agreed that a draft would be available in a January 201h timeftame and that the committee would meet one final time before the FCBR Governmental Affairs Committee. Materials they can count on receiving are: • Matrix which outlines the options for City Council • List of Fees • Health & Safety Inspection Sheet • Communications Plan Outline Action item: • "Dry Run" property run-throughs should take place as soon as possible. • Mike Salza to provide Felix contact information for Ron Soares, CSU Everett School of Real Estate. • Felix to provide Michelle a list of areas of town where zoning for more than one unit may have been"grandfathered" • City's Health & Safety Inspection Sheet (compared to HUD HQS form.) • Felix will make contact with Kelly DiMartino to brainstorm communication plan. Next meeting is Tuesday, January 20, 9:30 a.m.,281 N. College Conference Room A. 3 City of Fort Collins Non-Approved Duplexes Meeting Tuesday, January 20, 2009 Those in attendance: Debbie Tamlin, ZTI Group, Debbie a,ZT1group.com Chris Guillan, Re/Max christheagenet(a�vahoo.com Michelle Jacobs, Fort Collins Board of Realtors (FCBR) miacobs na,fcbr.org Carrie Ann Gills, Colorado Apartment Association Carrie gillis a,frangillis.com Clint Skutchan, Executive VP, FCBR Clint nwficbnorg Mike Salza, Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) msalza a,fcgov.com Diane Jones Jeff Scheick Felix Lee Mike Gebo Angelina Sanchez-Sprague The group reviewed the materials prepared by Felix Lee for City Council's Unapproved Duplexes review. Of special note, staff recommends: • 4 options for Council consideration • effective date of the ordinance as August 1, 2009 to allow"front-end" public outreach • use of a 12 month "Volunteer Application Period • standard fees at the time the building permit application is made • impact fees waived • fees will be collected once it's determined the application is for a zoning district where multi-family units are allowed Compliance of health and safety issues must be addressed in a timely manner with less pressing compliance issues allowed more time to complete. The industry members appreciate this opportunity for collaborative effort and the incentive (impact fees are waived.) They support an 18 month application period for the following reasons: • Economic climate; there will be a lag time of available credit for the consumers. Using federal TARP funds, banks are looking to equalize their Balance Sheets (due to inordinately high bad debt) before making funds available to the consumer. • The Northern Colorado Economic Development Corp reported a continued grim real estate market. More investors will be walking away from their properties. • The above makes for a hard time for investors to secure funds for capital improvements to their property. They normally just plan for taxes, insurance and O&M expenses with gains realized at the sale of property. With a stagnant home value and little available 1 Fort of credit, they may not have the funds needed now to improve their investment property as a part of this effort. They think it could be 6-12 months before credit is more easily available. • An expanded period could get 100-200 more units to comply. • Rental investments are like a 401 k—rental investors are experiencing some of the same decline in value as more conventional investments. Diane Jones recommends the application period is set by: • How long it takes to do a thorough job of marketing • How well marking materials are developed with the best possible information • Property owners understand the issues and the advantages of using this opportunity to come into compliance. Michelle wondered, given the complexity of the issues, if Council should schedule a work session to study the nuances. Clint agreed. He said it seems like they taken more time for less complex topics. The problems have been 35 years in the making, it makes sense to have enough time to resolve the issues. Diane said she believes Council wants to address the issue of unapproved duplexes with some urgency; completing the work before April. She believes if the program is outlined in as straightforward a manner as possible, they'll have what they need for their review. Diane asked the industry representative to outline their concerns in a memorandum to City Council. Other Inspections can be schedule 10 working days after an application is made. The compliance time clock starts ticking at preliminary inspection with health & safety issues addressed first (30 days) and less pressing issues allowed more time (typical processing of 6 months.) The team asked how"mother-in-law" units would be handled. When the Land Use Code was adopted, it was recommended that "mother-in-law" (self-contained units) be treated as a separate unit requiring a Certificate of Occupancy. The only exceptions are quarters that are a part of the primary residence and do not have a separate entrance. Mike Gebo asked if the application period starts August, 2009, could individuals ready to comply come forward as soon as possible. Felix said yes—it's an administrative matter that can be addressed after Council's direction is given. 2 City of Fort Collins Action item: • Diane Jones recommended the industry members draft a memo for Council's consideration that included available data on rentals, vacancy rates, foreclosure rates, and data on the impact to tenants with foreclosure. • When Communications program developed (with Communications & Public Involvement Staff) outline in a clear fashion: the issue, what we're doing, what's forgiven. • Felix to provide more detailed information on what the Development Review Application options mean. 3 Building ReviewReview Board Regular Meeting ®���� BRB January 29, 2009 Pg. 7 January 29, 2009 were going to very strongly lean toward compliance with the Lee stated that he was not in favor of putting any restriction on a new license. He explained tha the licensing process is self regulating. He further explained that if the respondent wereto°� o something egregious enough to be brought back before the Board, City staff d d�keep and make available all background history as part of the case. Eckman stated that the Board ought to have liberty to hear the fits and circumstances of the next infraction. He explained that he thought the Board would want to preserve their liberty to listen to all of the facts prior to making a decision. He'o ed that the Board would have the deliberations of this meeting in the record to use ag&fdrther evidence. Gust made a motion to reinstate the rip rident's D 1 license and suggested that the City grant the C2 license after completion ofi=tlie Raven View project and submittal of all final project verifications. Smith seconded' he motion. Vote: Yays: Gu mith, Packard, Schneider, Dunlap, Miller Nay - ram 7. Unrecorded Dwelling Unit Discussion 0 Lee stated that the materials sent in Board packets were based on the latest proposal that is going to City Council. He explained that this item is scheduled for a work session on February 24, 2009. He noted that there have been several meetings with members of the Board of Realtors, as well as the Colorado Apartment Association. Lee stated that there are still some things being investigated as other possibilities. He explained that the materials presented to the Board are a work in progress but document the history of the meetings and show where the concept is headed. He further explained that the goal is to encourage owners to come forth to get their units inspected for minimum health and safety purposes. Dunlap asked what sort of impact this kind of a project would have on City staff. Lee stated that he believed there was currently enough staff to be responsive. He based his response, in part, on the declining levels of new construction activity that is currently being experienced. Schneider noted that he appreciated staff seeking out professionals or people that this would substantially impact. He stated that he was confused as to why staff was offering Option 1 as the best option, since this would prove the most strenuous on staff and the most cost egregious to the consumer. Lee stated that this was not final, but a place to start. He explained that it was a work in progress that was headed to a work session where the whole thing may change. Schneider stated that he would prefer Option 4 because it essentially gives people 2 years to comply. He explained that he was concerned as a Board Member that they are going to see a line of people stating they missed the deadline by a month or two and that his compassion would be substantially less for people who waited past the two year deadline. He further explained that he Arm rCT BRB January 29,2009 Pg. 8 understood there would be challenges trying to inform the public about this within a twelve month period. Schneider stated that he liked the provision that enabled people to prove when the property really became a rental house as a basis to calculate fees, instead of basing fees on current rates. He explained that he believed the fees should be based on the fee schedule in place at the time the property became a rental instead of the fees in effect at the time of application, provided that the owner can provide documentation of when the property became a rental. Lee asked for reasons on why someone would not come forward within a year. Schneider stated that they might not have known about it. He explained that in the draft, it mentioned tying notification to tax levees. He further explained that in some cases a mortgage company pays the tax levee and the owner may or may not be notified. He stated that he was concerned about the twelve month window for something as substantial as this. Cram stated that he would prefer a two year amnesty period. He explained that somebody may purchase a property after that window under the impression that it was a legitimate rental and then would not get the amnesty. He was concerned that this scenario did not appear to be addressed in any of the documentation. He suggested that a possible safeguard would be for the City to put on their website, in a very prominent location, a button where someone could go to check a property to see if it had been put on an approved list, so that a real estate agent or a person looking for some property could do a search of properties to see whether a rental was legal. Smith stated that the City would then be getting into a list of rentals which Council has already voted in strong opposition to. Cram stated that he thought it would be reasonable for someone to have the ability to look up a property to enable them to do a search and find out if the property was approved as a rental. He explained that right now there is no way for someone to do that. Schneider asked if there was a way that the City could do that. Lee explained that it would not be an easy task. He added that although County Assessor records might be of some help in this regard,just because a property was listed as a duplex did not mean that it had been approved or was located in a zone that allows for rentals. Schneider stated that he did not necessarily want to have to listen to cases where the County had listed a property as a duplex that had not been approved by the City. He asked how to clean up the gray area and if there were any systems or procedures that could be put into place to do that. Schneider stated that this issue reinforces to him that there really needs to be a two year amnesty period. Smith stated that he sees this as an opportunity for people to skirt the time period and get away with it for as long as they can, which is in opposition to the goal of making sure there are egress windows and proper heating. He explained that he believed there needed to be a process that was more focused on getting properties legal and approved. He added that he felt that zoning issues should be completely taken out of the picture. He further explained that he was afraid that the requirement would go the opposite direction and the City would end up with a bunch of illegal duplexes that nobody would be willing to fix. DRAFT BRB January 29,2009 Pg. 9 Lee stated that there will always be some illegal duplexes. He stated that from an equity point of view, he does not have a lot of sympathy for duplexes that are located in zones that never allowed for it. He added that if a rental was allowed in a specific zone at one time and was later changed to a lower density, that the rental unit approved for as long as the use continues at that location. Smith stated that with Fort Collins being a college town, rentals have been encouraged as a good investment and the zoning issues have not been enforced. He explained that now the City is bringing up the issue that rentals are not allowed within specific zones, but the neighborhoods have already changed into areas were rentals are common. Smith was concerned that the City had no process in place to approve a change in the zoning. Schneider asked if an individual in this situation could request a zoning variance. Lee stated that rezoning through a variance was not allowed. He explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not authorized to do any rezoning. Dunlap asked when the City of Fort Collins started zoning. Lee stated that he believed it started in 1925. Schneider stated that he was hearing that if a property was not zoned properly today, but perhaps was zoned properly some years ago and it could be proven, then the City would allow for it. Lee confirmed this. He explained that the use would essentially be grandfathered in. Smith stated that this still would not protect somebody who may have made a bad investment. He explained that the City is turning the purchase into a bad investment for the buyer because of something that hasn't been enforced for 20 or 30 years. He stated that if people are willing to go through the hoops, and it is possible to rezone, then he thought there should be a process for that. Smith stated that there should be a process where the property could be made legal instead of requiring the use to stop and uprooting people. Lee stated that he was on the other side of this issue, representing the public at large and not an individual. He added that making changes to zoning is very difficult to do. On Attachment 3, under Item #16, Schneider asked if there was a fee associated with the inspection when a property had to be converted back to a single family dwelling. Lee stated that there would not be an inspection fee. Schneider asked what the City would be looking for when they do the inspection. Lee stated that the City would need to find out if the property was owner occupied or if it was a rental. He explained that if it was owner occupied then the minimum rental housing standards would not apply since this only applies to rental housing. Schneider stated that he wanted to clarify that so people would not be afraid to come forward and go through the process if all of a sudden they were going to be called on other violations. Felix stated that there would be a lot of opportunity for further discussion on this item. He added that the Board would be kept informed of upcoming meetings and related activities. (end of discussion) ATTACHMENT # 5 of �� Collins tf� Rental Housing Frequently Asked Questions . . . Property owners • Why should I come forward? Owners of non-approved rental dwelling units will have a window of opportunity to avoid paying significant impact fees and taxes by complying with the proposed ordinance during the voluntary application period. • What if I miss the voluntary application period? If an owner of a non-approved rental dwelling unit misses the application period, the owner can submit a written appeal detailing the circumstances to the Building Official. If unsatisfied with the Building Official's decision, they can appeal further to the Building Review Board. If appeal denied, the property owner will be subject to payment offees and taxes currently in effect. • What happens if my property is discovered to have a non-approved rental dwelling unit either by the City or complaint before I apply? The owner will have the same opportunities where impact fees and taxes are waived if during the application period timeframe. • Can I get an extension for mitigating circumstances? The property owner can submit a written request with the Building Official explaining the circumstances of the necessary extension. If unsatisfied with the Building Official's decision, the owner can appeal further to the Building Review Board. • What are the additional costs if I have a rental with three or more rental dwelling units? If the building has three or more rental dwelling units, the development review fee may be higher based on site and public improvements-refer to Development Review application for specifics. For example, there may be off-street parking requirements; necessary public sidewalk improvements; the need to pave an alley; and compliance with lot to building area ratio requirements. 1 City of Fort Collins Rental Housing Frequently Asked Questions . . . Tenants • What if my landlord is notified by the City that my rental dwelling needs immediate corrections for health/safety violations and my residence is determined "unfit to occupy"? If there are immediate health/safety violations, the unit may be ordered to be vacated until the corrections are satisfied.(These include basement bedrooms without adequate emergency escape windows, electrical hazards or unsanitary conditions). You will need to find temporary accommodations until the City has determined it is safe to return. Your lease is a contract between you and your landlord. If you have any issues regarding your terms, you should work directly with your landlord The City can help with mediation services if both tenant and landlord are willing to pursue. • What if I feel my landlord has violated the City ordinance and has not come forward to comply with the non-approved rental dwelling unit regulations? The main objective is that all rental housing meets the City's minimum health and safety .standards. You may file a complaint with Building Code Services and an inspector will follow through. If the rental dwelling unit is found to have violations and no Certificate of Occupancy, the city will issue a notification to the property owner of the necessary corrections and timeframe to be completed. • What if when the City inspects our rental unit they discover there are more than three- unrelated adults residing in the rental? If any of the City's ordinances are found to be in violation when the rental unit is inspected, both landlord and tenant are required to comply. These not only include minimum health/safety standards but also occupancy and nuisance codes. The terms of your lease are between you and your landlord; however the agreement cannot violate City codes. The City can offer mediation services if both tenant and landlord are willing. • What if my rental unit is located in a district that was never allowed by the City's Zoning? The owner of the rental will not be allowed to continue to use the property as a rental. You, as the tenant, will be required to relocate. The terms ofyour lease are between you and your landlord; however the agreement cannot violate City codes. The City can offer mediation services if both tenant and landlord are willing. 2 City of „Fort Collins ATTACHMENT # 6 Suggested Public Outreach Campaign for Compliance of Rental Housing (two or more dwelling units) Goal: To effectively publicize to all stakeholder the process for rental housing (two or more dwelling units), including non-approved dwelling units, to comply with the City's minimum health and safety standards. Target Audience: Primary—Landlords/Property Owners & Property Managers of rental units Secondary—Tenants/renters & parents of student renters Other— Neighborhood groups and general community Key Messages: Tenant health and safety Inspection and correction Certificate of Occupancy Methods: a) Brochure—print and online b) Checklist—print and online c) Streaming Video—city website (produced by Channel 14) A. DVD copies available to purchase for training/conferences d) Spotlight on the Webpage e) Studio 14 topic f) Bulletin Board Screens g) CityNews/Utility newsletter h) Neighborhood News Newsletter i) Colorado Apartment Association (CAA)Newsletter j) Board of Realtors (BOR) Newsletter k) CSU Housing Fair 3/4/09 9am-4 pm. *table already reserved* l) Direct Mailings m) Presentations n) Coloradoan—electronic banner I City of Fart Collins Budget: 1. Mailings— $5,000 for 13,000 mailings (approximate number of rental housing minus multi- family—based on census info) 2. Video— $5,000 (produced by Channel 14) 3. Coloradoan electronic banner—$759 per month 4. Printing a. Brochures - $300 for 1,000 brochures. b. Checklists - print in-house. Collaborate with Stakeholders: • Run articles in their newsletters • Give presentations to their memberships • Seek their help Proposed Timeline: January—March 2009: Begin work on all printed material and video; compile research regarding property owners of"basement apartments"/duplexes via Utility records or other resources; share updates with students at City/CSU meetings. April—May 2009: Finalize printed material, submit content for all online media, schedule presentations, and begin video production; share updates with students at City/CSU meetings. June—September 2009: Launch full publicity campaign to all stakeholders (air video, run articles, run all online media, send/distribute brochures, public meetings, seminars....) 2