Loading...
2A - Discussion of Historic Preservation Enforcement IssuesMEMORANDUM June 15~', 2005 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Discussion of Historic Preservation Enforcement Issues SUMMARY: ^ T'he Board has requested information regarding the policies and procedures regarding the enforcement of provisions of the historic preservation ordinance. ~ Section 10-13-22 of the code ensures that "no person shall violate or permit to be violated any of the requirements of this chapter or of a landmark alteration certificate" in order to ensure compliance with the legislative intent of the historic preservation ordinance as outlined in Sectionl0-13-1 of that document and Section 2.30 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to provide information to the Board regarding current historic preservation enforcement and to discuss the effectiveness of the program. S:~PLANWataVongangU-IIST~agendas~2005\enforcement memo 6.15.OS.doc The Board has requested information regarding the policies and procedures regarding the enforcement of provisions of the historic preservation ordinance. To thaY end, staff has prepared current policy and practice in terms the reporting and enforcement of violations. Section 10-13-22 of the code ensures that "no person shall violate or permit to be violated any of the requirements of this chapter or of a landmark alteration certificate" in order to ensure compliance with the legislative intent of the historic preservation ordinance as outlined in Sectionl0-13-1 of that document and Section 2.30 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. While consistent enforcement of violations is critical to the irnplementation of the City's historic preservation program, public education to ensure compliance can significantly lessen the number of violations. Ultimately, the goal of the historic preservation enforcement process is ensure compliance with the code and where v.iolations have occuned, to resolve them in a manner consistent with the ordinance. Enforcement of city land use and building code violations is coordinated by zoning and enforcement; a division of planning and development services as summarized in Attachment A.. The specific provisions regulating the enforcement of the landmarks ordinance can be found at Section 10-13-22, B.R.C. 'Those provisions can be summarized as follows: 1. If staff considers that a violation has occurred, the owner of the property must first be given written notification of the violation. 2. The property owner then has thirty days to correct the violation from the date of the notice. 3. If the violation is not corrected within thirty days, then the City may issue a summons and complaint to the landowner charging the sections of the code that have been violated. 4. However, this notice requirement does not apply to violations of Section 10-13-23, B.R.C. This section requires a permit for the demolition, moving and removal of buildings over fifty years old. 5. Except as described in #6 below, violations are punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per violation, or incarceration for not more than ninety days in jail, or by both. However, in order to impose a jail sentence S:~PLAN~data\Iongrang~EIISTIagendas~2005~enforcement memo 6.15.OS.doc the court must be satisfied that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. 6. For violations of Section 10-13-12, B.R.C. "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required" or Section 10-13-23, B.R.C., "Review of Permits for Demolition, Moving, and Removal of Buildings," a fine of not more than $5,000 per violation may be imposed or incarceration in jail for not more than 90 days or both such fine and incarceration. Since most violations that the Landmarks Board is interested in would fall in these two categories, this will generally be the controlling section. 'The following flow chart is intended to summarize cunent practice in the enforcement of violations to the historic preservation ordinance: ~ Receive Compla,int ~ Reterred to Inspectlons - Validate Complaint Inspection Performed Inspeetlon Pertormed Notlce oi Violationl No Violatlon 3top Work* Summons issued to Municipal Court or other remedies as pravlded by law pt vtoisuon uot corrected wlthlo 30 daya or notlce) Violation Cosected (,~~nm ao aays oe nonce~ Case closed Penalty: up to~i5000 andlor 90 days in iail per vlolation Plus up to 52000 it in alolation ot a building permit " It a vlolatlon to Chapter 13 is conflrmed a letter is sent to the alalator inlorming them as to the vlolatlan and ta the 30-day perlod during wLich they must bring the project Into compllance. in many cases, more than 30 days is allowed tor resolutlon ot a vlolatlon. S:~PLANWataUongrang~HIST~agendas~2005~enforcement memo 6.15.OS.doc During 2004 and the first half of 2005, there were twelve violations to the historic preservation ordinance. In handling these violations, the historic preservation section works with enforcement to resolve them. Typically, a violator wiil either bring the violation into compliance with the Landmark Alteration Certificate as shown on the petmit set of drawings or bring the violation the Design Review Committee of the Landmarks Board for a revised or new LAC within the thirty day period. For those not brought into compliance, court summons are sought. An example of this is the unauthorized window replacement at 24416~ Street. Currently there is not a system in place to specifically track historic preservation violations from beginning to resolution. Staff periodically meets with inspections staff to train them on issues related to historic preservation in order that conditions of the LAC are inspected in addition to life safety, building code, and zoning as part of the certificate of occupancy process. Such a training with inspection staff is due. Representatives from the City Attomey's Office and Inspections will be in attendance at the meeting to participate in the discussion and answer c{uestions regarding issues and concerns about historic preservation ordinance violation provisions or enforcement procedures. S:~PLAN~data\longrang~I-IIST~agendas~2005~enforcement memo 6.15.OS.doc Attachment A ENVIRONMENTAL & ZOPIING ENFORCEMENT May 4, 2005 Resources Four code enforcement officers (including a Code Enforcement Supervisor), a half-time administrative person and one-quarter of the Chief Building OfficiaPs position (for a total of 4.75 FTE) provide Environmental and Zoning Enforcement services. Work performed in this azea includes the enforcement of regulations involving noise, nuisance party, trash, sidewalk snow removal and weeds and activities involving over-occupancy, illegal uses/units and enforcement of the sign code. This staff also provides support for the enforcement of the city's building and housing codes which can involve historic preservation issues. This work group is part of the Public Works Department and is included in the service area and fund lmown as Planning & Development Services (P & DS). The P& DS Fund includes a General Fund transfer that pays for "general govemance" activities including Environmental & Zoning Enforcement. The 2005 Budget for this program is $383,093 and includes all personnel (salaries and benefits) and non-personnel costs (such as fleet and computer replacement chazges and staff training). Audit History A Univers~ty Hill Action Gmup (UHAG) was established in 2000 to recommend specific actions to the City Council to improve the quality of life in this neighborhood. One of the recommendations was to initiate an independent management audit to examine the effectiveness of Environxnental and Zoning Enforcement. A Management Review was completed in May 2001. A detailed Performance Audit for Envimnmental Code Enforcement (Environmental and Zoning Enforcement) was undertaken in 2001, and a final repor[ was issued in January 2002. Please refer to the following link for the Performance Audit: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/environmenUenvironmentalenfaudit.pdf During this audit, the equivalent of 5.67 FTE were included in this program. General Fund revenue reductions resulted in expenditure reductions across the organizarion during 2003/2004. Specifically, this work area experienced a reduction in staffing and the elimination of the overtime budget. Implementation of the audit has achieved results, including the adoption of more cleazly defined policies and procedures. Actions taken are summarized in the following links: httu://www.ci.boulder.co. us/clerk/WIP/2003/4-3-03/item4b.pdf httn://www.ci.boulder.co.us/clerk/WIP/2004/09-09-04/3d.ndf 1 Policy Direction The audit recommended that the City Council adopt guiding principles and policies for code enforcement. Resolution 903 was adopted on Apri12, 2002. Please refer to the following link for Resolution 903: httn://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/environmenURes903.pdf Enforcement Response Data associated with complainUcontact and summons information is posted on the city web site and periodically updated: http:/(www.ci.boulder.co.uslbuildineserviceslcrvstaUCPUcpI summons sum ce.ndf http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildin¢services/documents/complaintsummons.pdf httu://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildinQServices/documents/kewiolations.pdf Both the Police and Public Works Depattments respond to noise and nuisance party complaints. Information associated with enforcement responses in these areas is summarized in Attachment A. Envimnmental and Zoning Enforcemeni activities are seasonal in nature and staff hours are adjusted accordingly. For example, from mid April through CU's May Graduapon and from the beginning of CU's Fall Semester through Halloween, Environmental and Zoning Enforcement staff focus on trash, noise and nuisance party enforcement and work hours include Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. Enforcement actions aze both officer-initiated and taken in response to complaints. With respect to the former, this includes scheduled work fime in the Goss-Gmve, Martin Acres and the University Hill neighborhoods. In 2004, approximately 48% of code enforcement cases were officer-initiated. 2005 Focus In addition to providing support for the analysis and implementation of proposals in support of Resolution 960 (alcohol abuse), 2005 work efforts include: Mapping recent code enforcement history for the University Hill, Martin Acres and Goss Grove neighborhoods in order to inform and further refine code enforcement responses and strategies, 2 Improving communication with residents by implementing a web-based tool to assist residents in filing complaints and generating a standard report for residents which outlines the actions taken by staff in response, Evaluaring with stakeholders the International Property Maintenance Code as an alternarive to the existing Housing Code, and Preparing the 2006/2007 Budget, Business Plan and associated metrics for Environmental & Zoning Enforcement to support City Council decision-making for the allocation of resources. Attachment A NEIGHBORHOOD NOI5E ENFORCEMENT* 2003 5UMMARY Complaints` Field ContactsZ Summonses Issued' 3197 2314 113 Police Department Public Works Dept. 1275 1044 135 EZEO 4472 3358 248 Total 2004 SUMMARY Complaints Field Contacts Summonses Issued 2945 2400 115 Police Department Public Works Dept. 1291 1049 136 EZEO 4236 3449 251 Total ' Data source: Public Works LandLink database and BPD CAD system ' OfFicecs are dispatched in response to naise cox~q~laints, but pmactive efforts are also undertaken. T'hese numbers include both complaint-based and of~'icer-iniriated contacts. Z Not all complaints aze located in the field. These numbers retlect verified cornplaint locarions. ' Summonses include bo[h Noise and Nuisance Party. The Nuisance Party prohibited regularion states thst no owner, occupant or tenant of any premise shall sponsor, conduct, or permit a social gathering which is or bewmes a public nuisance. Such a gathering consututes a public nuisance when iY results in one or more city violations, including noise.