Body
Police Department, Code Enforcement
Reference: Weed, Grass or Brush Growth Unlawful and Section 8 Code revisions
To: Mayor Richard N. McLean and Members of City Council
Through: Manuel Esquibel, City Manager
Prepared By: Micah Acker, Support Services Sergeant
Rex Long, Code Enforcement Officer
Date Prepared: June 1, 2015
BACKGROUND
While reviewing the requirement to have all weeds and grass within the city cut below six inches, we realized several large lots were too big to require the land owners to completely mow. Cutting entire fields would strip them of their natural grasses, cat tails, wild flowers and other vegetation that beautify the landscape, prevent wind erosion and deter prairie dog populations. After consulting with the Parks Department, Code Enforcement and reviewing codes from other municipalities, it is proposed requiring the trimming of 20 feet back from public right of ways and other developed properties. This is sufficient to provide safety for motorists, pedestrians and prevent fire hazards. The 20 foot exception would apply to lots greater than one acre. By providing a realistic and enforceable standard, the entire City would have a more manicured appearance and would be safer. See additional information under "Large Parcel Maintenance."
During the review of the weed ordinances, it was determined several of the other ordinances in section 8 were outdated and did not address current issues. The City Attorney assisted in rewriting 27 ordinances. They covered several areas including: definitions, authority given to the City Manager, Building Official and Fire Marshal to identify and address safety hazards, landscaping, and expectations regarding trash containers. The following is a list of the updated ordinances:
1. Abatement of unsanitary or dangerous premises; nuisance
2. Right of entry for inspection; notice to correct condition
3. Rules and regulations established by City Manager
4. Definitions
5. Violations, penalties, and nuisance declared
6. City Manager inspection and enforcement
7. Abatement of nuisance
8. Notice of violation
9. Weeds and Grass - Notice to cut weeds and grass
10. Notice to maintain landscaping
11. Failure to abate; abatement by City; costs
12. Abatement costs; to whom paid
13. Collection of costs
14. Duty to provide and maintain landscaping
15. Weeds, un-mowed grasses, nuisances prohibited
16. Weeds - Unlawful growth
17. Weeds - Authority of City Manager; regulations
18. Weeds - Exceptions (Large Parcel Maintenance)
19. Trees - Neglect of trees, shrubs or plants unlawful
20. Trees - Notification of damage or injury
21. Trees - Removal of dead trees or boughs
22. Trees - Rules and regulations established by City Manager
23. Tree species prohibited
24. Spacing of trees
25. Refuse and Rubbish
26. Refuse and rubbish-prohibited
27. Refuse and Rubbish - Burning prohibited
Large Parcel maintenance
Most properties annex into the city as large undeveloped agricultural parcels, and take several years to initiate site development. Upon annexation, the properties are required by section 8-8-20 to mow all of their growth below 6 inches. However, it isn't realistic to completely mow these large parcels. First, there are naturally growing sections of land with cat tails, prairie grass and other wild flowers mixed amongst weeds that add beauty to the landscape and prevent wind erosion. It is often more attractive to let these areas remain wild than to see them mowed. In a recent case, after enforcing the mowing of the entire field behind the Eagle Ridge Academy near Telluride and Southern St, the results were not attractive. There were several prairie dog hills in the field that the mower was unable to cut properly without damaging their equipment, so unsightly patches of weeds were left behind. Secondly, the costs to mow them isn't realistically feasible. In cases that the property owner does not maintain the land themselves, the cost to abate these properties would exhaust the abatement budget. The current cost to abate a large property is approximately two-hundred fifty dollars ($250) per acre. In addition, the burden to mow such large parcels often discourages compliance from the landowners, and in some cases the owners choose to let the City abate rather than find a company to maintain the field. Offering a reasonable alternative to land owners could provide an incentive to maintaining the land.
Instead, it would be more pertinent and true to the intent of the regulation to require large property owners to trim a border around any perimeter that is adjacent to existing development. Trimming growth back 20 feet from the right-of-ways is safer for motorists, pedestrians and provides a break to prevent fire hazards. This will also reduce the cost to property owners.
Cost savings to the property owner can also equate to cost savings for the city when abatement is necessary for bringing properties into compliance. Following with this code proposal, large parcels that are abated would be done so to the twenty (20) feet perimeter not the entire property. More properties that come into compliance voluntarily due to lower costs and time to maintain, will equate to less time dedicated to these properties by Code Enforcement Officers.
The Code Enforcement Officers are prepared to notify land owners early each season to advise them of the maintainable and realistic expectations in an attempt to keep the City safer and manicured throughout the growing season.
Fire Hazard Mitigation
The current ordinance also addresses fire hazards but does not specify who determines what is expected to prevent a fire hazard. Adding a reference to the City Manager or his designees to determine the manner to cut back growth to prevent a fire hazard gives authority to the City Manager to address a specific emergencies or high fire danger conditions. It also clarifies who is permitted to make the determination on what is required.
STAFF DIRECTION
· Should city staff proceed with a code amendment to modify the requirements for weed control on large parcels of land?
ATTACHMENTS
· Map of large parcels annexed into the city
· Photos of trimmed back properties
· Draft code amendment