Loading...
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