010510 planning commission
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 5, 2010
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Vice Chair Houle called the meeting to order
at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Pat Crough, Jeff Houle,
Sandra Hunten, Kimberly Johnson, Roger Landy, Tom
Schmidt, Steve Svendsen
Absent: Ranjan Nirgudé
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development,
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Eric Weiss, Community
Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
ELECTION OF Vice Chair Houle opened the floor for nominations for the positions of
chair, vice chair and third officer for 2010. Commissioner Svendsen
OFFICERS
nominated Vice Chair Houle as chair, Commissioner Brinkman as vice
chair, and Commissioner Anderson as third officer. Seconded by
Commissioner Landy. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Subcommittees are as follows: Codes and Standards – Commissioners
Brinkman, Crough, Hunten, Johnson, and Schmidt; Design and Review –
Commissioners Anderson, Houle, Landy, Nirgudé, and Svendsen.
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09-15 Chair Houle introduced Item 5.1, discussion of an ordinance amending
New Hope Code Section 3-50(j)(2) regulating setback requirements for
Item 5.1
temporary signs, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Chair Houle stated the commission discussed this at the December
meeting and there were a couple outstanding points to revisit. One issue
was whether or not the League of Minnesota Cities had any legal opinion
regarding the setbacks and potential of an accident due to signs blocking
someone entering the intersection. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, reported
that staff checked with the League and indicated there was no problem
with the way the ordinance was written from a liability point of view.
Mr. Sondrall pointed out that this ordinance was part of chapter 3 of the
city code and did not require a public hearing.
Commissioner Svendsen stated he was in favor of the ordinance as
written and did not have a concern with small signs three feet or less in
height located in the sight triangle.
Mr. Sondrall stated he revised Section 3-50(j)(2)b to state that signs three
feet or less in height would be permitted in the sight triangle. In answer to
a question, Mr. Sondrall clarified that signs could be placed two feet from
the curb, unless the sign interfered with the use of the sidewalk, or placed
behind the sidewalk. Most streets have more than two feet of boulevard
grassy area between the curb and the sidewalk and this ordinance would
allow placement of small signs in the boulevard area.
Chair Houle pointed out that the two-foot setback referred to sign
placement in residential zoning districts. Commercial/industrial
properties are required to obtain a permit for temporary signs and must
abide by city code for sign placement. Also, signs over three feet in height
are not allowed to be placed in the corner sight triangle.
Mr. Jacobsen commented that city staff would place the new setback
regulations for the placement of small temporary signs on the city’s
website and provide a handout at city hall upon adoption by the City
Council.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Item 5.1 Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 09-15, an ordinance amending New
Hope Code Section 3-50(j)(2) regulating setback requirements for
temporary signs, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Crough, Hunten, Johnson, Landy,
Schmidt, Svendsen
Voting against: Houle
Absent: Nirgudé
Motion carried.
Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City
Council at its meeting on January 25.
PC09-12 Chair Houle introduced Item 5.2, discussion of an ordinance amending
Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by requiring registration of vacant
Item 5.2
buildings, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Weiss stated that, per the direction of the City Council, the Planning
Commission was asked to review a proposed Vacant Property
Registration (VPR) program, which is intended to ensure properties are in
safe and healthy conditions despite their vacant status. This ordinance
would apply to all residential and industrial/commercial buildings. Staff
and the Codes and Standard Committee reviewed VPR programs from
metro area cities and those across the country. The proposed ordinance
was modeled after one utilized by the city of Brooklyn Center. The New
Hope VPR program would require the owner of a vacant property to
register with the city by providing contact information and a property
plan, with timeline, for re-use, rehabilitation or demolition of the
building. This program would provide the city with additional tools to
2
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
ensure properties are safe and secure. Registration of the vacant property
must be done within 30 days of vacancy, and names, addresses, phone
numbers and email addresses for each owner or their representatives, lien
holders, and persons managing the property must be provided. Owners
must also provide the status of all utilities and submit a property plan
that would include details and a timetable on the re-use of the property or
demolition, which could be updated periodically with the building
official.
Properties exempt from registering would include properties damaged by
fire and properties where the owners leave for the winter (snowbirds),
although the owners would be encouraged to notify the city with
emergency contact information.
Fees would be determined by the City Council and must be paid prior to
the issuance of any permits. Vacant buildings must be secured and
building exteriors and yards must be maintained. The city currently has
an ordinance that allows staff to secure buildings left in an unsecure
condition.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee
recommend approval.
Commissioner Svendsen stated he felt this would be a valuable tool for
residential structures, but was hesitant on how it would be applied to
shopping centers with vacant tenant bays. Each bay has separate water
and power/heat and, if for example the heat went out in one bay and
pipes burst, water damage could affect the other occupied bays.
Commissioner Schmidt responded that the ordinance would apply to an
entire vacant building.
Mr. Sondrall noted the ordinance would mainly apply to residential
properties and small apartment buildings. However, any vacant building,
including industrial or commercial buildings, must be registered.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that he did not want to burden
commercial/industrial property owners with this registration process, as
he would assume they would have active property managers that would
be maintaining the property. It was pointed out that it should not be a
burden for the owners to provide contact information to the city. Sondrall
stated he agreed that if only one tenant bay in a multiple tenant building
was occupied and the building was actively managed, this ordinance
would not apply.
Commissioner Hunten stated she did not have a concern with registering
a property, however, requiring a property plan seemed burdensome. She
indicated she felt that definitions should be included for vacant and
abandoned properties. Vacant, to her, would indicate the city knows the
whereabouts of the property owner and the property was being actively
managed. Abandoned would indicate no one knows who the owner is or
the location of the owner and no one was maintaining the property. Mr.
3
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
Sondrall indicated he did not think definitions were necessary to explain
abandoned and vacant properties.
Hunten stressed her concern with the demolition section of the
ordinance, and pointed out the planning consultant, in his memo dated
December 17, was also concerned with that section, which currently states
if a building is vacant for 365 days and no property plan is in place, the
owner must demolish the building or the city would have it demolished.
Mr. Sondrall stated that the city would not demolition a property without
going through the abatement process under Minn. Statute 463. The city
would not impose itself on a building to demolish it unless there was a
court order to do so. By keeping this section in the ordinance, it may
motivate a property owner to take an active part in maintaining the
property or at least submit a property plan to the city as to the current
status and plans for the property’s future. It was mentioned that the
property plan could be as simple as the owner stating that he is trying to
lease the property.
Hunten maintained that the section regarding the demolition seemed to
be very punishing for the property owner, who was probably doing
everything possible to get the property occupied in a timely fashion.
Sondrall stated that this section could be removed if that was what the
Planning Commission wanted. The city has the opportunity and
availability to start a hazardous building complaint under Chapter 463
and if the city approves the building as a hazardous building, the city can
demolish the building and assess the cost back to the property.
Eventually, someone who may buy the property would have to pay those
costs. Mr. Sondrall explained that if a building was vacant for a year, the
owner should contact the city and explain what was happening, which
would probably result in the city not bringing a hazardous building
action against the building. The city’s inspectors try to watch for vacant
or problem properties while conducting other inspections, and if a
building is not secure, the city can secure the building, and the inspectors
can determine whether or not the building is hazardous at that time.
Discussion ensued on properties that have been vacant for a period of
time and the owner is leasing to someone new, an inspection of the
property should be completed to be sure the building is fit for occupancy.
Mr. Sondrall suggested the following be added to section 3-35(g): “the
owner may not permit a building vacant for more than ‘365 days’ to be
reoccupied until 1)the city is provided notice to remove it from the vacant
building registry, and 2) the building has been inspected and approved
for occupancy by the building official.” The Planning Commission should
give direction on the length of time a building may be vacant before an
inspection would be necessary before re-occupancy.
Commissioner Brinkman stated he understood the city wanted a dialog
with the property owner, but he didn’t think owners would willingly
come to the city to register vacant properties, especially with a fee
attached to it. Mr. Weiss stated that generally fees are minimal. Some
4
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
cities have a sliding scale, where the first year the fee might be $50 and it
would go up each year the building was vacant. Mr. Sondrall agreed that
enforcement of the ordinance would be problematic and staff may be
chasing owners to register the buildings. Mr. Jacobsen explained the
problems city staff has had getting graffiti removed and other issues
resolved with an abandoned building on 42nd Avenue where the
property owner lives out of state and is unresponsive to city requests for
maintenance.
Mr. Sondrall explained that the city adopted an ordinance last year that
allows the city to go into a property to secure vacant buildings. For
example, if there is a building where water pipes burst and water is filling
the property or coming out of the windows/doors, the city’s public works
department can go into the property to remove the water meter.
Commissioner Johnson stated she had sent several discussion points
prior to the Codes and Standards Committee meeting. She also wondered
whether snow removal from parking areas, sidewalks, and the fire lane
should be included under the exterior maintenance section. Mr. Jacobsen
stated that ultimately property owners were responsible for snow
removal per city code. Mr. Sondrall interjected that the city has a
property maintenance code in effect that would apply to these situations.
Commissioner Houle wondered whether or not a rental property, vacant
for a couple months and where the owner was utilizing the garage for
storage, needed to be registered as a vacant property. Mr. Jacobsen
responded that the inspectors try to watch for vacant properties and
indicators that may raise concerns with the property. Mr. Sondrall stated
that the Commission should look at this ordinance and similar ordinances
that allow the city to go into buildings to secure them more as a tool to
allow the city to deal with troubled properties. There is a certain amount
of discretion that the building official and inspectors can use in dealing
with a troubled property. Many vacant properties are maintained in good
condition by the property owners. The city may not need to enforce this
ordinance against every property that becomes vacant for a short period
of time.
Chair Houle questioned what would happen if the owner did not register
the vacant property with the city within the 30 day timeframe and the
response was that an administrative ticket could be issued or a criminal
ticket, which would be a misdemeanor crime. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the
goal with the administrative citation program was to get compliance with
the city code. The first step in the administrative process is a letter
indicating the problem and a certain amount of time to correct the
problem. A citation is sent if the property owner does not correct the
problem. If the citation is not paid, the cost is assessed against the
property.
Commissioner Johnson stated that if the city was to play a more active
role in the vacant properties, that a specific timeframe should be
5
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
established for reviewing the property plan or revisions to the plan. Mr.
Sondrall suggested that a specific timeframe may be difficult to establish
and a hindrance to the city if the workload of the building official is such
that the plan cannot be reviewed in the time specified in the ordinance. A
certain amount of flexibility in the ordinance may be beneficial for the city
if the building official and property owner are actively working together
to find a solution and have come to an agreement on a timetable.
Commissioner Hunten pointed out that she did not appreciate the city
being able to tell her what to do with her property if she wanted to sell
her house and it was vacant for a period of time. She indicated she did
not feel this ordinance as proposed was right for New Hope. Mr. Jacobsen
explained someone could break into the vacant property and start a fire
or cause an explosion that could damage adjacent houses. The city has the
right to protect its residents and property values. Mr. Sondrall
commented that if a resident called the city reporting a vacant property
or a problem at the site, staff would have contact information for the
property owner and know whether or not the water had been turned off
or if the home was heated in winter. In the case of abandoned properties,
the city would monitor the property. The registration of these properties
would help in maintaining the housing stock in the city and maintain
property values.
Commissioner Houle stated that exemptions included fire damage, but
wondered if water damage or storm damage should be included. Mr.
Sondrall stated that generally a fire would cause more damage and
repairs would take longer to complete.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he did not support registering
properties within 30 days of vacancy. The lease cycle on industrial
properties could be six to 12 months before the property owner has a new
tenant. He stated he did not support a fee for the property owner to
register with the city and he did not support the demolition section.
Chair Houle commented that the Commission seemed to be split on the
ordinance with some agreeing that the ordinance generally is a good idea
as is and others agree that there is value in parts of the ordinance and
would like to see it reworked. He also pointed out several inconsistencies
in the proposed ordinance, such as the 30-day registration period,
timeline for submission of the property plan, demolition, et cetera. Mr.
Jacobsen recommended tabling and suggested the commissioners send in
changes for staff to compile and bring back to the Codes and Standards
Committee. A suggestion was made to remove the portions of the
ordinance that are already covered in other areas of the code.
Commissioner Johnson questioned Council Member Hoffe, who was in
the audience, if there was a specific issue the Council wanted the
ordinance to address. Council Member Hoffe replied that the Council
wanted the Commission to provide background information on this
matter and make a recommendation.
6
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
Mr. Sondrall asked for clarification on what the Commission wanted to be
changed, specifically 1) the application period, 2) registration and fees 3)
property plan, and 4) demolition. Commissioners Crough and Landy
stated they were in favor of leaving the demolition section in the
ordinance. Chair Houle indicated the language in the ordinance was
subjective to whoever was authorized to enforce it. Commissioner
Brinkman stressed that the purpose of the ordinance was to obtain a plan
of action by the property owner for the vacant property. He suggested
city staff contact Brooklyn Center to find out what worked and what
didn’t work in their ordinance and then New Hope could make
adjustments to this ordinance. The main function is to get something
done and start a dialog between the city and the property owner.
Chair Houle suggested inserting a different timeframe for registration for
residential and commercial properties.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern with the fact that business
owners now would be required to register their vacant property and pay
a fee to the city, in addition to property taxes. Mr. Sondrall interjected
that the registration would be beneficial to property owners in that when
a new business contacts city staff for a list of vacant properties for
relocation, the city would have a data base of available properties and
contact information. Commissioner Schmidt wondered how property
owners would be informed that vacant properties needed to be registered
or would staff have to try to track down the owners as they discover
vacancies.
Chair Houle questioned how this would affect the business friendly
impression that the city was trying to create.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested that this issue be referred back to the
Codes and Standards with the input presented at this meeting, additional
comments sent to staff, and further information obtained from Brooklyn
Center regarding its ordinance. Mr. Jacobsen stated that comments
should be sent to the city by January 12 so staff can compile all the
information for the Codes and Standards meeting on January 20.
Mr. Sondrall summarized that this ordinance would help the city create a
data base of vacant properties. A minimal fee would be paid at the time
of application. The city would then be able to utilize the contact
information in the event of graffiti, a maintenance issue, a broken water
pipe, or other emergency.
Item 5.3 Chair Houle introduced Item 5.3, discussion of an ordinance amending
Chapter 8-6 of the New Hope City Code regulating solicitors, peddlers
and transient merchants, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jacobsen stated the City Council had been approached by a resident
who felt it was important for the city to have an ordinance to license or
7
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
maintain a data base of solicitors/peddlers in the city. The proposed
ordinance is based on one utilized in Crystal. New Hope’s current policy
is to have solicitors register with the city, but not license them. Residents
can post a sign for no solicitation on their property.
Chair Houle wondered whether or not the intent was to cut down on the
number of peddlers in the city and the response was that was not the
intent. The registration process and background check may, however,
deter some of the solicitors. This ordinance would not include school
groups, newspaper sales, food sales and nonprofits.
Commissioner Svendsen inquired what the registered solicitor would get
from the city to show a homeowner that they had registered. Mr. Sondrall
stated the ordinance indicates that the licensees must wear some type of
identification and carry the city issued license when conducting the
business or activity required to be licensed.
In response to a question, Mr. Sondrall confirmed that if a solicitor did
not register with the city per city code, it was a misdemeanor.
Discussion ensued on whether or not Crystal had ever issued any
citations for this. Mr. Jacobsen stated that he would not recommend
issuing administrative fines as generally peddlers are from out of state
and it would be difficult to attach the fine to a property if left unpaid.
Mr. Sondrall mentioned that the City Council had visited this issue many
times over the years. The current ordinance is effective as it is written.
Crystal’s ordinance was written to exclude groups of people that have the
right by constitution to go door to door.
Chair Houle pointed out that 8-6(c)(11) requires the names of three other
municipalities where the applicant had conducted business and
wondered how a person new in business would fill out the application.
The response was that applicant would just note he was new in business.
Section (e)(2) nonprofit groups and free expression exemption – this
section exempts these groups from obtaining a license, but they would
have to provide the names and addresses of officers and all persons
involved in canvassing efforts. This section would require the registration
of all candidates for election and everyone working for them, school
groups, girl/boy scouts, et cetera. Section (e)(3) farm produce,
horticultural, fireworks exemption – farm produce and horticulture are
constitutional per the Minnesota Constitution. Section (f) investigation
and issuance – the police department indicated that a CCH Investigation
could be completed within 24 hours. A suggestion was made to delete the
phrase “the application will then be presented to the city council.”
A question was raised on how many complaints the city receives and the
response was that the city clerk receives from two to four complaints a
year.
8
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
After some discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to not
recommend adoption of this ordinance.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Crough,
Item 5.3 to approve an ordinance amending Chapter 8-6 of the New Hope City
Code regulating solicitors, peddlers and transient merchants, city of
New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Crough, Svendsen
Voting against: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Johnson, Landy,
Schmidt
Absent: Nirgudé
Motion denied.
Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City
Council at its meeting on January 25.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee
did not meet in December. Mr. Jacobsen added that no pre-application
Committee
meetings were conducted and staff was not anticipating any new
Item 6.1
applications to be submitted on January 8.
Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards
Committee met in December and discussed the three issues brought
Committee
forward at this meeting. The next committee meeting was scheduled for
Item 6.2
January 20 at 6 p.m. The committee would be continuing its discussion on
licensing massage parlors, reviewing the city’s current rental registration
ordinance, and revisiting the vacant property registration program.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to discuss.
Miscellaneous Issues
Item 7.1
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion Item Chair Houle indicated that due to the late hour this item would be
reviewed at the next meeting.
Planning Case 06-06
Item 8.1
Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen,
Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1, 2009. All
Item 8.2 voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Jacobsen gave a brief update on the transit oriented development
study for the 42nd/Winnetka avenue area and the $50,000 grant awarded
to the city. The study would look at ways to improve vehicular and
pedestrian traffic in and around this area and be completed during the
first half of 2010. An advisory committee would be established with
representatives from the school, county, area businesses, and residents. A
9
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010
block exercise with the Planning Commission and City Council would
also be a part of the study.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
10
Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 2010