Loading...
6.3. SR 02-07-2011Item 6.3. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Manager, Jeremy Barnhart DATE: February 7, 201 1 SUBJECT: Sidewalk Snowplowing Ordinance Mayor Dietz requested the City Council review the sidewalk snowplowing ordinance. City Code X46-34, addresses Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety-The following shall be declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safety: Section (a)(8) "Sidewalks that are not kept free of snow and ice during normal business hours in commercial and industrial zoned districts and within 24 hours after a snowfall within residential districts" History This section was part of the 1982 City Code. In 2008 Council directed staff to enforce the abatement ordinances based on complaints. In winter 2008 the city started enforcing the sidewalk ordinance, but because the code enforcement process was developing, zero complaints were received. In 2009, with greater awareness of the ordinance, the city received additional complaints: Year ~ Complaints/Letter Written- I Properties Abated 2009 10 p 2010 76 11 2011 31 3 On January 19, 2011 staff received a complaint regarding the sidewalk on the north side of Highland Avenue. Code enforcement staff investigated and found that the sidewalk had not been cleared. As is practice, staff sent letters to other properties on the same block, recognizing that enforcing a snow removal requirement on one parcel, but not addressing it at their neighbors, is a waste of resources and time and does not address the original complaint. Seven notices were sent. On January 22, 2011 a property owner received the letter and contacted the Mayor. A request to appeal has not been received by staff from the property owner. C:\UsersMallard\Desktop\Sidewalk Ord Mem.doc Along the north side of Highland Avenue there are 19 properties. Six have cleared their sidewalks while the other 13 have not. Abatement Procedure Because snow removal has been deemed a nuisance and staff has been directed to abate nuisances, the city follows the nuisance abatement procedure as required by ordinance. The nuisance abatement procedure includes: Sending a certified letter outlining the violation and the amount of time they have to complete the work on their own (ordinance allows 14 days). o The letter includes a copy of the City Code which details the abatement and appeals process. o The letter includes a statement that the work will be done and costs incurxed will be assessed by the city to the property owner if the property owner doesn't complete the work by the required date. Council may recall that the city recently accepted the bid from Greenscape Companies for sidewalk plowing abatement. Their costs are a flat $70 for a lot with 0 - 100 feet of sidewalk and $200 for a lot with 101 - 200 feet of sidewalk. We found with prior contracts there was little control over the amount of time a contractor would spend on a given lot and since the fee was based on the amount of time there was a large discrepancy in the amount charged. To address this we went with a flat rate. Discussions with Property Owners In response to the concerns of the property owner, staff met with the individual who contacted the Mayor. During our conversation three areas of concern were discussed 1. The property owner objected to the receipt of a certified letter as first notice. 2. Snow storage: Some lots may have little space to store snow between the curb and sidewalk from the street. 3. If the property owners had known about the requirement, they may have been able to keep ahead of the snow. It is staff s opinion that changing the nuisance ordinance will not satisfy the primary concerns. However, the city could and should take a more aggressive approach in educating the public and working on our process to find ways to better affect compliance. Options Understanding that there may be some desire to alter the code enforcement practice in response to comments received, staff has identified options: 1. Amend the nuisance ordinance to state that if the city removes snow from one side of the street, the property owners on the other side do not need to remove snow from their sidewalk. 2. Amend the ordinance to remove uncleared sidewalks as a defined nuisance. Staff does not recommend this option as mobility is as important in the winter as it is in the summer. C:AUsersMallard\Desktop\Sidewalk Ord Mem.doc 3. Amend the city's sidewalk plowing policy to clear more or different sidewalks throughout the city. This will impact city financial resources and may require a tax increase depending on the amount of change made. Staff supports this if maintaining sidewalks is deemed a high priority. 4. Amend the abatement procedure. As noted above, the current abatement procedure requires 14 days for the property owner to complete the work from the date of a certified notice before the city may take action. Staff has struggled with this because by the time a resident complains their frustration has reached a high level. And forcing them to wait another 14 days just adds to that level. On the other side, a complaint we frequently receive is that they first heard of their potential violation via a `harsh' certified letter. A solution to both problems is to amend the process, giving people 7-10 days after the certified letter, but a certified letter is the second letter sent, after a friendlier warning letter is sent. It should be noted that in all cases, except nuisance abatement cases, two letters are sent. 5. Maintain the current nuisance abatement process. Impact to the Vision One of the components identified by the Visioning Committee was the question of consistent application of code enforcement. This should not be interpreted to never change policy or ordinance, but rather, very carefully consider the "why" in amending the policy or ordinance. The city is in the third year of code enforcement and in that time the vast majority of residents have completed the work. Predominantly, the properties that were abated were vacant. This point was added because it seems to point out that the system generally works toward compliance. Further, staffs professional recommendation has been to avoid major departures from established policies or ordinances based on relatively minor (in number) complaints. If changes to policy axe appropriate, it is suggested further study precede an amendment. Staff does not suggest any changes to the nuisance ordinance but is seeking further dixection from Council on reviewing changes to the code enforcement process. Attachment Map of properties that received letters and properties that were abated. Map of routes affected by Option 1 (noted above). Map of sidewalks removed from city plowing as approved by City Council on October 12, 2009. C:\UsersMallard\Desktop\Sidewalk Ord Mem.doc Ih~yr y~ ~ ,ronN SaN sT i . ~ gq ~ R _ CC m / \ 1 d q ti ©7$t: ~ In y ~ ~ ~~ n c D g ~ _ '^ _ - v 03 FNNOE Si 6~ ` ~~ ~ ~ - lO ~ 4ER ST / r5 O~ O^ ' 3 ~ R r, -- OO~ER ST ll~ /4/ N~ I rs F R~uCAE ST 0 R ^ ^ ~ D m S $ CiR 4 mZ pS[ / k ~ ~ (CO RO RO WNiv RO IJ LS Yn ~ - z u i / -~ / / m ~ ~ ' \ / ~ y _ ~ fLLMORE 51 a ~ ~~ r~ y 0 _ _ \ l _ . £ "~ '- ~ ~ \ ~~ ' `~\ EO SON Si ~ i ~ o SIDEWALK PLOWING DATE: 2.7. 1 1 20 SHEET PROPERTIES THAT REC EIVED LETTERS DRAWN BY: cM~ 1 Ei River SCALE: NOT TO SCALE N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Maps\Exhibits\2011\Sidewalk Plowing\Letters Sent.dwg, 2/4/2011 11:05:01 AM . SIDEWALK PLOWING 2 x:20„ SHEET DRAWN BY: E _ SIDEWALKS ACROSS CITY PLOWED ROUTES cML ~--~ SCALE: River NOT TO SCALE I (1aaoG) zESULON ~ ~ ~ ~~ s. 1`(` / :E~,~ax ~ „,,~ ~~. /, -'' ~ ~ s (1a7oa) xERxES ~~" i%''j~ I I ~_ V] ~ ~zi ~ s s: ~. wnco ~ ~~~~ w.N ~ $ d d l~azoo) ~' VICTORIA ~ & ~ ~ na~oG) uwoN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ V] VO TROY / / ~ ~ ~~ (14000) F morn sr SALEM ~ I g ' N RA WLINS ( ~ ~ ~ ~ S ( C/~ ~~~ I O _ .4 ~~- ~ (I7ooD> ~ ~^ 0 ~ ~ o o ~ y ~ QUEEN / R 03800) PASCAL ~ N / ~~ ~ ~ i~ / I ~l ~~~•• / ~ OLDEN ~ ~ F $ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ /1 NAPLES / / ,/ L~J I .s ~w II7E00) MACON ` ~ 1 0m ~- i N ~ /, Sx.tax sY ~b^ wow M~ (13.`CO`, _ KENT ~ ~ _ "` ~ ~ ~@q ~ V ~ 'Ftl ~s I `,~ _ g g O/ II +anw~ ssrr II JOPLIN A a - ~ $ ~{ ..7aoo) °~ j tt ~r `/ IRON TON O °y m ~ 4, ~ ~ cWN~v ort~H?~ /~ /-~ (17300) HUDSON _ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 8 8 V / 4J O GARY' g sr __~ ~ on y~ ~ ~ "S [' ~ O '.17200) rn[sx ~ ~y FRESNO ~ '~~w sr `~ I--I ~/~ C/~ C/1 V1 (i71aD) ELGIN ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ Q o ~ ~~ ~~ Sw ~ ~~ ~ ~ m Cn ~ DENVER ~ s. x sr ~ S O C !o I 4 ~ _ rzono) N c~DNCORD ~ V O - ~ ~ C ~ ~ ; aaK~ sr ~ Y s s o EDSTGN ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ° ~ `~ ALBANY '-S ~~F ~~~ F "v ~~J % _,_ \.~ 90 ~ I ~a . ~~ s (i2aoo) zuMeRO ~o ~ ~ ~ w a~a*~ ~L~ ~ wE ~~ ~~a II YORK 0 / C~ J r I Bs ~ ~~I~ `~ui 'un` s I ~ ~ 1~ (12700) vax'n ~ ~ f F.~/ y5~'4 xENIA %~ a ~~ "~~G ~ ~ .ors. WA i50N ~ d ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ M+~pq~, 200) ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ " ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ /~ F W VERNON Q w. sW ^"p ~ O /~~ vsxxw ¢ ~ s 3 s v~ ' ~I ~' ~ ~ nzsoo) UPLAND ~ ~ ~ - °''~ "~ ~ ~ ~ C nPTON ~v ~~ °~~~ // ~ ~ //Z~ ~ (12aoo) ~~ ~ / / ~ 4~ r..l SEYMOUR ~ ~ llI ~ j~ S ~ i ~ (t230U) RUSH ~j ~ ' °Jg ~ OUINN / ~ ~ / / 4 0 (12100) PROCTOR / ~ ~" V (12100) OXFORD \~-~J~ yhe ~ll ~ ; % i - < ~}~r;,~ / NORFOLk I ~ " ~ ,J , j~/ ~ ~ e~~ s ~ ~~ ~ (12000) MORTON w ~ ~ /i ~ 1~ ~~r ~, LOwELL (11900) ~~~ Q ~~ /~' 1 s ~ ~y // ~ mKx KING i ~/~ ~ ~ £ u ~ ~x ~' JACKSON ~~~ ~ ~- -- +~ // ~'~ A - s ~aa~s. (neoo) ~ ~ 9, w r °*xa ~ s ~ ~ ae,` IRVINC ~'/~'~~t, ~ ~ ~~ ~ . GATES ~~ ~ ~-~ , ~; ~ ~~.. ~~%. a .. N ~~~ /~ s ~I ~--~~ _ r O ~ +J ~ ~ g ~ ~ / ~ ~ Wtc3 ro 4 ~ / _ asr ~ /_1 r `~_ ~ vrsEs y ~s sns^'" i %i ~ ma 8~ ~~~ ~ c / - , Mme, ~, ~~s 4 _ q ~i i Y ~ ~r ~ ~+, e J ~ .~ ~ ... ......._. ~ /1 x C~ av _ \\11 -- ~ o SS~ ',,,~ a g r a.,aQOOK _ 1 ~ 5 ~ ~ 8 ~ i ~r ~__ ~` III s' u ~' ~ i 4 _- ~~ = sr ~ ~ 'e~ I ~ iY ~~ 4 msuoxe sr O~ GPavr ,I / / 4 (cow +o ~ a 8 / C~ ~~ // ''r / ~l sax r i ~ ~ ~ „ ~~ -~ ~~ ~ ~~ wu ~~ /, A ~~ f ~~~'