HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.e. Code Enforcement IssuesCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: March 13, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: Code Enforcement
AGENDA SECTION•
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Jim Parsons
Community Development Director
AfxENDA N
fM # 2 E
ATTACHMENTS:
APPROVED
Background
L/ v
This report gives some statistics for code enforcement activities in the year 2002, and discusses
the neighborhood education and enforcement effort. It also addresses the issues of enclosures
for waste containers and of code violations in the downtown area. The information about the
neighborhood education and enforcement effort is provided so that the Council is familiar with
the effort. Regarding the issues of waste enclosures and downtown violations, staff is seeking
direction from the Council.
Code Enforcement Statistics in 2002
35 cases were referred or declined
771 cases /properties were inspected
806 total cases
694 cases were residential properties
62 cases were commercial properties
15 cases were on undeveloped parcels
771 cases
698 cases are in compliance and closed
73 cases are open and in process
771 cases
(Continued on next page)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Code Enforcement Statistics in 2002 (continued)
26 of the open cases are waste enclosure violations
17 citations were issued
8 cited cases are in compliance and closed
9 cited cases are in court and pending
435 neighborhood education and enforcement mailings /inspections
308 properties were found to be compliant on inspection (71 %)
133 properties were found to be in violation on inspection (29 %)
The neighborhood education and enforcement program accounted for 57% of total code
enforcement inspections.
363 enforcement letters were sent:
108 were first notices based on neighborhood education /enforcement inspections
101 were first notices based on complaints
106 were second notices
38 were non - compliance notices
10 were citation/formal complaint notices
363 total
Neighborhood Education and Enforcement Effort
The neighborhood education and enforcement effort was initiated to respond to
complaints that the City's enforcement program was reactive. Some residents felt that
they were being singled out based on complaints from a neighbor, while other properties
with the same violations were ignored because no complaint was made. Some residents
feel that the city has not put enough effort into education regarding the ordinances and
what is expected of property owners.
Many residents hesitate to speak to their neighbors regarding nuisances. The majority of
complaints received by staff are made anonymously. The neighborhood education and
enforcement program removes this dilemma for residents by educating residents and
holding each property owner or resident to the same standards. Residents have asked
staff when staff will reach their neighborhood because they do not wish to make
complaints against their neighbors. One resident e- mailed a complaint to staff expressing
her frustration with violations on a neighboring property, but also her fear of retaliation.
That resident was very happy to learn that staff was about to conduct inspections in her
neighborhood; she e- mailed her thanks to staff after the problems were rectified.
At a seminar, staff learned of other cities around the country that have similar proactive,
educational neighborhood code enforcement programs. Staff surveyed surrounding cities
regarding similar programs. While no neighboring cities have similar programs in place,
they were supportive of the concept and are interested in pursuing such a program.
The City Council approved of the neighborhood education and enforcement effort in
2002.
2
A
The effort began with an educational mailing to a selected neighborhood. The mailing
explained the intent to educate property owners and residents regarding city ordinances,
and detailed the most common ordinance violations. It also notified residents that staff
would inspect their neighborhood in two weeks. The mailing generated a number of calls
to staff in support of the program. A few calls with negative views were also
received. Staff discussed the intent of the program with all the callers and answered
questions. The program was also featured in the local newspapers.
Staff conducted the initial inspections. Staff walked the neighborhood, block -by- block,
and contacted residents as they inspected each property. Each property owner was asked
if they had received the mailing, had any questions regarding the program, and if they
approved of the program. The majority of residents expressed support for the program,
often even if they were notified of violations on their own property.
Waste Enclosure Violations
Staff identified a number of business and multi- family residential properties that were in
violation of city code relating to waste storage and waste container enclosures. Staff
notified the owners of those business and apartment properties of their responsibility for
storing their wastes as required by city code. Staff presented the issue at a local Chamber
of Commerce meeting. The City Council updated the ordinances relating to waste
storage, waste containers, waste container enclosures, and waste collector licensing and
collection methods. Waste container enclosures for new buildings must match the
exterior materials of the main building; such enclosures for existing buildings may be
built of wood or chain -link fence with screening. The waste container enclosures stop
trash from blowing around the site, and they discourage vandalism or carelessness that
can result in garbage or grease spilled on the ground.
Several local businesses brought their properties into compliance with the ordinances.
There were 38 properties in violation originally. Currently about 26 properties are still
not in compliance. Staff is aware of more violations, however, staff feels that it is better
to complete the original list before beginning another.
The process of education and enforcement has been ongoing for almost 18 months; the
City has granted generous time periods for compliance including extensions over the
winter months.
Once the construction season arrives, staff will continue in the enforcement process
for businesses and multi - family residential properties that are not in compliance. Staff
expects that owners of older properties, especially those downtown, will contact the City
Council for relief due to various difficulties in complying with the ordinances.
Downtown Enforcement
Staff has been involved in several code issues in the downtown area, and along the Co.
Rd. 42 business corridor as well. Non- conforming signs, waste enclosures, and outdoor
storage have been addressed. Some downtown violations are pending in court or have
variance requests pending.
3
Staff often is asked why the City does not seem to enforce the ordinances as scrupulously
in the downtown area as it does in other areas. Some of the pending court and variance
issues are examples of how staff has dealt with violations downtown. However, there are
concerns relating to the downtown area that remain.
Some businesses pre -date current ordinance requirements, even though many codes have
been in place for 20 years. The downtown district is not held to the same standard as
some other zoning districts in the city by the ordinances. Some businesses have ignored
or challenged the City's authority in these matters. Staff has thus far attempted to enforce
the ordinances with an even - handed approach, holding all property and business owners
to the standards imposed by the ordinances. However, it is difficult to explain to a
property owner why the City is now enforcing an ordinance and requiring a change from
what was allowed in the past. 'Staff explains that the City did not have staffing for pro-
active code enforcement previously. This does not often make the person receiving the
violation notice feel better.
When the business owners along CSAH 42 were advised of waste container enclosure, or
other violations, they wondered if the downtown businesses were being held to the same
standard. Eventually the neighborhood education and enforcement program will reach
the downtown area as well. The downtown is unique in that the outdoor storage and
many setback regulations are relaxed or difficult to comply with. While some of the
problems or violations encountered downtown are public health or safety nuisances, some
are also related to the esthetic appearance of the community. Staff is seeking the
Council's direction in how to proceed with enforcement activities in the downtown area
in a manner that is consistent with expectations imposed on other areas of the city while
still maintaining community standards.
0