Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/2004 Special Meeting ;122 SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 2004 - 1:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL 1. Roll Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman Staff: Doug Maples, Code Administration and Planning Manager, Ken Harper, Consulting Attorney, and City Clerk Roberts Mayor George opened the meeting by stating the purpose is for Council to hold a study session on setting standards for vacant structures. He stated that due to the limited time today, the public would be able to address Council on this issue at a future meeting. 2. Study Session on draft legislation setting standards for vacant structures Doug Maples referenced the report and the changes made in the proposed ordinance, commenting that staff and the City's legal consultant were available to respond to questions. • The Ordinance is Reviewed and Questions are answered • A survey of the neighborhoods during one week revealed 81 residential dwellings and 23 commercials buildings that are boarded up. • The proposed ordinance is a new section in the Code, giving staff additional tools to address vacant structures that don't fall within the definition of a dangerous building. • The Community Review Board's jurisdiction is limited to unfit buildings; some, but not all, vacant structures would fall under their purview. • Upon passage of this ordinance, vacant buildings as defined in the ordinance would be required to meet minimum standards. The owner would be required to inspect their properties at least annually. The ordinance provides basic guidelines as to how vacant buildings should be maintained in order to keep the buildings in a safe manner. • Six types of owners of vacant buildings for which this ordinance would apply were identified: 1) Meth labs or drug related paraphernalia in structure — staff is limited in dealing with that building until the Department of Health has released it. 2) Unresponsive owner who doesn't want to do anything with the property — the building would be boarded up, and the cost for doing so would be covered by a lien against the property. 3) Owner can't be located. Staff would search for the owner or anyone with • a legal or financial interest in the property. 4) A structure that is in probate; there is no value in the house and it just sits there. FEBRUARY 3, 2004 — SPECIAL MEETING ,3 5) A person that is a responsive owner but does not have funds to fix the property, i.e. elderly couple in nursing home. 6) A person who wants to board it up and leave it there for one reason or another. • A house that is "mothballed" under Municipal Code 11.10.230 would be under the Community Review Board's authority. If the structure is boarded up, is graffiti -free, the lawn is kept up, and there is no access to the building, it would meet the criteria of this proposed ordinance • It was clarified that if a structure is not actively being used, but is being attended; it would not be defined as a vacant building; i.e. someone goes away for three months, but the residence is maintained. • Under the current code, staff does not initiate action on unfit buildings, but only responds to complaints about them. • Discussion regarding the annual inspection concluded that additional consideration would have to be given as to whether it should be done by a private company, the homeowner, or city staff. If city staff does the inspection, would there be a fee? The proposed ordinance now states that the owner has an obligation to live up to the standards and to inspect their building annually to make sure it is in compliance. The question of city vs. owner inspection only kicks in if the property is not in compliance, then the building official may order the owner to have the building professionally inspected. • Concluding Remarks and Council Action Doug Maples commented that the proposed ordinance provides a mechanism to put pressure on owners to bring their property to a level equal to the rest of the neighborhood. It was the consensus of Council to hold an evening public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Staff will do some legal analysis regarding the comments heard today and provide Council with options regarding enforcement. 3. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2 :00 p.m. ti READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY ?A • C UN L MEM DATE _ 7� COUNCIL MEMBER 9 DATE ATTEST: • CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, MAYA R Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 2