Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-24 PACKET 12.A.REQtJES7 OF CiIY CC7UNCIL ACTIO� COUNCIL AGEND,4 PdIEETING ITEM # ! /��� DATE 6/24/98 1 �J PREPARED �Y: Community Development Kim Lindquist OF2IGIMA7lPJG DEPARTfV1ENT STAFF AU�H(7FZ a..��tr.�....A«4s�.4..��A�a.�.�A.�4@a.�.���...�.. COUNCIL ACTIOR! REQUEST: Discussion of nuisance complaints. : r � • : r r • • ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ■ ' ; ■ - � . ■ - : •' � ..- . � • . � ■ ' ■ • � � •' ■ SUPPORTING DOCUfV1ENTS ►1 ■ ■ ■ � � REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEtv10lLETTEFt: iVlemo f�om Kim Lindquist dated 6/9 �/98 • � •� ••� � ►� ►:�: • •� • . � �. �, i ' +� " !' � Cify Administrator :• ;, �' � y ,4PPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DEIVIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rF� o a r a a< m o a m m a a o a m a a s. m m a a w a a m a a m a s rt a m r¢ s a,a w m m m o c m,s �ou�c�� ���rco� °���E�: ❑ �a���cav�� [� ���i�� C� �r�t�� F:SGROUPSNLANNIPdG\9998\CIIYCOUN45uisance6-24 caver.duc MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director DATE: June 18, 1998 RE: Nuisance Violations INTRODUCTION Councilmember Kohis forwarded a memorandum to staff and the Council regarding nuisance complaints. Over time, other Counciimembers have also brought specific properties to staff's attention and have requested site compiiance with existing ordinances. This memorandum is to provide background information for the workshop discussion. Staffing Commitment The City receives a wide range of complaints from housing and zoning code violations to tali grass, exterior storage, and drainage issues. The current process is that ali complaints handled by Building or Planning are logged in. This logging in process started in mid-year 1996. The foliowing lists the number of complaints received: ➢ 8/96-12/96 34 ➢ 2/97-12/97 93 ➢ 1/98-5l98 56 Public Works handles tall grass or weed compiaints and Public Safety handles some vehicie complaints, which would not be reflected in these numbers. Although all complaints should be logged in, I believe these numbers underestimate the number of complaints actually received by the Community Development Department. Bob laBrosse is the primary code enforcement officer within the department. During the sum- mer of 1998, Ben Martig wili be assisting in many of the code enforcement issues. Review of the time sheet records over the past two years indicates a jump in the amount af time allocated to code enforcement. Planning staff time is not included in this total. 1996 287 hours 1997 484 hours 1998 120 hours (as of June, 1998) Nuisance Violations June 18, 1998 Page 2 During budget discussions with the Counci! in 1996, the Community Development Department was directed to "look° for violations rather than jusf reacting to complaints. While this philoso- phy has not been strictly followed, stafE has foliowed up or monitored areas which seem to have re-occurring problems. Complaints Processing As previously mentioned, the first step in receiving a complaint is to log in the complaint. Staff has been told to try to get the name of the person who has registered the complaint. Although most people prefer to remain anonymous, this can hamper investigation of a complaint. Many times residents call about a particular property, and upon review, staff finds that there are no ordinance violations. Without being abie to contact the complainant, it is perceived that the City has taken no action. Additionally, clarifications to the residenf's concern may be nec- essary. Again, without knowing who registered the complaint, it may be more difficult to successfuily resolve the issue. Staff typica��y reviews the problem property within two days of receiving the complaint. A letter is written to the property owner out�ining the violation and a specific date to achieve compli- ance. Typicaily, the owner is given 10 days to bring the site into compliance. The complainant is notified of the status of the complaint, whether there were violations or not, and what action was taken by the City. The site is re-inspected after the 10 days. If the violation persists, a second notice is sent, again giving a date certain for compliance. The time period is usually seven to ten days. The letter also notes that failure to comp(y will result in issuance of an administrative citation. Since inception of the administrative offense program, Community Development has issued six tickets. CASE EXAMPLES The Community Development staff is in general agreement with the discussion raised by Counciimember Kohis. The existing ordinance, at times, may be too ambiguous to aid in enforcement. Often, from a common sense approach, a property may appear to be in violation, however, measured against the ordinance language, it is in compliance. Additionaily, several of the more notorious properties have a history which lirnits the ability to change the existing condition. The following provides some examples of the di�culties of code enforcement: Allen R. Marty, 77&3 Lamar Ave. (Auto Repair Business) In 1965, Edgar Marty received a conditionai use permit to add to the existing non-conforming auto repair garage in the R-1 rural residential zoning district. The auto repair business was in existence before the city zoning code established auto repair as a prohibited use. Alien Marty, Edgar Marty's son, has since taken over the auto repair business and retains the right to operate it. The City has received numerous complaints dating back to 1984 regarding the number of vehicles on the property. However, it has been di�cult to limit the number of vehicles and auto parts because the conditional use permit, with the exception of a 30-foot side yard setback and requirement to pay the building permit fee, had no conditions attached to control its operation. Nuisance Violations June 18, 1998 Page 3 The city has attempted to negotiate with the owner to resolve this probiem but he has been unwilling to limit the number of vehicies on his property. Staff has recentiy been advised by the city attomey to take the position that the operatian has grown from its original intended use, since the addition in 1965. On June 4, 1998, the city staff issued a letter to the owner indicating he must limit the number of vehicles in public view to three. Furthermore, he was asked to remove the auto parts, barrels, and other materiais from public view. It was indicated that this would be his last warning and that any future violation wouid lead to necessary legai action to revoke the conditional use permit. A re-inspection for compliance of the letter by staff revealed that the car hood and car parts couid no longer be seen from public view (partiaily due to the increased vegetative growth). However, the barrels were still in public view and there were nine vehiGes in public view compared to the three-vehicle maximum required by the staff. As shown in this example, the process of documenting the situation, trying to resolve it with the owner, and then taking legal action is often complex and time consuming. F�rthermore, it is difficult to say whether the City, through legal channels, will be able to limit the repair operation. Ronald �ingie, 7085 Irvin Ave. S. (Home Occupation - Printing Business) On April 22, 1996 an owner of a residential home received a home occupation permit for a printing shop. This was a permitted use in the residential zoning district. On October 20, 1997, an anonymous "group of citizens" sent the Mayor a letter regarding the home occupation at 7085 Irvin Avenue South. They felt that the owner didn't actually live there but "pretended" to live there by placing fumiture and beds in the house in order to retain his home occupation permit. City staff, upon taiking with the owner, discovered that his son actually lived in the house and operated the business. Under the current ordinance, this situation does not violate the per- formance standards for the home occupation permit. Allowing persons other than the owner of the property and permit holder to live in the home and operate the home occupation business may be a weakness of the ordinance. On October 17, 1997 and June 4, 1998, there was a complaint regarding boxes that were left in public view after a delivery had been made to the property. This is a violation of the city ordinance dealing with unauthorized accumulation and removal of waste material. The boxes were cleaned up after city staff sent a notice to the owner. Often the City receives compliance after notification of a violation. However, continuous vio- (ations may occur requiring continuous monitoring. From the neighbors' perspective, it may seem that the issue is not satisfactotily resolved. Staff has begun sending letters stating there wiil be no future warnings of violations but rather an administrative ticket will be issued. This has been met with limited success. Finally, there had been complaints that there were too many cars and recreationai vehicles (personai watercraft, boat, and motorcycle) on the property. The ordinance does not limit the Nuisance Violations June 18, 1998 Page 4 number of cars you have on the property but does require that they be placed on a"durable and dustless surface." The ordinance does not have any requirements regarding the number or location of recreational vehiGes on a residentiai property. Although there are complaints, a revision of the ordinance would be necessary to limit the number of cars on a residential property and/or the location and number of recreationai vehicles on a residential property. Furthermore, discussion on regulation of ail vehiGes, whether cars, boats, trailers, or RVs, may be appropriate. Alvin Martin, 1a876 ideal Ave. (A&F Auto Saivage) In 1979, the property owner received a conditional use permit to expand the non-conforming junkyard business (A&F Auto Salvage) at 10876 Ideal Ave. There have been several com- plaints since 1994 regarding the exterior storage of inoperable vehicles and automotive parts found outside the fenced area of the salvage yard. These problems have been remedied by citing violations of the city code regarding exterior storage. Administrative citations have been issued for violations to the ordinance, but if progress is being made to remedy the situation, staff may have held off issuing a ticket. There have also been several compiaints regarding the number of licensed and operable vehicles parked in the front yard, especially along Ideal Avenue. There is a condition in the conditional use permit that requires trucks and equipment utilized in conjunction with the auto salvage operation be stored inside the fence and away from the residence on the property. However, vehicles that are operable and licensed but not used for the auto salvage operation are not regulated. Recent checks of the property have found al! vehicles registered to the address. As mentioned earlier, there is c�rrently no limit to the number of vehicles parked on an approved surface in a residential area. The property owner has been warned that any future violations regarding exterior storage will result in an administrative offense of $100 for each day of non-compliance. No notice or time will be given to him for the purposes of correcting the violation(s). David Briones, 6870 - 84th St. S. (Auto Repair) On February 21, 1991 the city received a complaint regarding the storage and constant repair of automobiles at 6870 - 84th Street South. There was no permit for the commercial auto re- pair at this residence. The city ordinance does not allow any residentia{ dwelling within the city to operate a commercial auto repair business. Staff found that the property was in vioiation of several ordinances including unficensed vehi- cles being stored in public view, off-street parking not on a"durable and dustiess" surface, and oil not disposed of properly. These violations indicated that there may be an automotive repair business being conducted at the property, but it was not conclusive. The city could on�y enfo�ce the violations that were visible. On October 25, 1995, the city received another complaint regarding the possibility that the residence was being used as an automotive repair business. The owner was instructed to discantinue all automotive repair on vehicles not listed to him or his family members and that ail auto parts should be kept out of public view. Nuisance Violations June 18, 1998 Page 5 On March 25 and April 12 of this year, the city once again received a complaint that there was an auto repair business at the residence. One of the persons complaining about the property provided a business card which read "Dave's Inc. Body & Auto Shop" with his phone number listed on the card. However, there was no address provided on the business card, which would directly prove an auto repair business existed at the residence. The city warned that any new evidence of an auto body repair business could lead to an administrative offense citation of $100 each day the business is operated.