Loading...
10/02/1996 - 00003651CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the october 2, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: �ave Kondrick, �eROy oquist, �ean saba, Brad sielaff, Connie Modig, �arry Kuechle Members Absent: Diane Savage others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant �ugal Agarwal, 370 - 74th Avenue N.E. Cindy Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street N.E. Bill & Suzanne Holm, 7424 Melody �rive N.E. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Mr. oquist, to approve the September 18, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-16, BY JUGAL AGARWAL: Per Section 205.08.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings, other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on �ot 3, Block 5, Melody Manor, generally located at 370-372 - 74th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Mr. saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is located at 370-372 - 74th Avenue, which is located north of 73rd Avenue and east of university Avenue in the Melody Manor neighborhood. The request is for a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. �ocated on the subject parcel is a duplex constructed in 1964. There is a first accessory structure in the southeast corner of the property constructed in 1978. That accessory structure measures 22 feet x 24 feet. The petitioner is proposing to construct a second accessory structure in the southwest corner of the property measuring 16 feet x 20 feet. The property is zoned PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 2 R-2, Two Family Dwelling. R-2 as well as the parcels south of the subject parcel Family. The surrounding parcels are also zoned across the street. To the rear or , the parcels are zoned R-1, single Ms. McPherson stated, typically, when staff reviews these types of requests, staff looks at several standard stipulations including requiring installation of a hard surface driveway, permitting no home occupations within the accessory structure, and requiring architectural compatibility with the dwelling unit. The first accessory structure has a hard surface driveway from the street to the structure itself. on the west side where the proposed structure is to be located, there is a partial hard surface driveway to the side door entry. zt allows for parking of two vehicles on the site; however, that driveway would need to be extended should the special use permit be approved. Ms. McPherson stated, in reviewing the file and in speaking with a neighbor within the notification radius, it was noted that the property has a history of code enforcement problems, specifically improper storage complaints as recently as 7uly 1996. The code enforcement officer has been working with the property owner to rectify those situations. From the documentation in the address file, it appeared that the situation had been rectified. zt should also be noted that the fire department indicated that a fire occurred recently which was caused by juveniles starting fire to dry leaves which were located behind the existing garage. zn addition to the typical stipulations indicated earlier, staff has also stipulated that proper storage of materials shall take place in compliance with code. Ms. McPherson not increase 2 district. construction stipulations: stated the ad the lot covera Staff recommen of the second ditional structure ge over the 30% as ds approval of the accessory structure on the site will permitted in the R- request to allow with the following 1. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by November 1, 1997. 2. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation. � � The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. vehicles, refuse and other materials shall be stored in compliance with the City Code. Mr. sielaff asked how many compliance code violations there had been for this property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated she did not have that information. zt appeared that there was at least one complaint per year or one every two years. Mr. sielaff asked if the violations were different or the same. Ms. McPherson stated the property is a rental property so, as tenants change, different conditions would occur. one year it might be improper storage of vehicles, the next year it might be improper storage of refuse. Ms. Modig asked if the owner lives on the property. Ms. McPherson stated she did not think so. Mr. Kondrick asked if the violations addressed might be alleviated by constructing this accessory structure. Ms. McPherson stated she believed the structure would provide the location for storage of a vehicle, children's toys, garbage cans or bags of refuse. we have similar code enforcement difficulties all over the community whether it be single family property or rental p rope rty . Mr. oquist stated the structure would be a garage for the second unit of the duplex. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. oquist asked if there was a variance needed for the driveway. Ms. McPherson stated no variance would be needed. The structure and driveway as proposed meet the requirements. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received comments from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated she had received a call from a neighbor who voiced an objection. Mr. Hickok also received a call. This neighbor did not voice an objection, but voiced their concern about the storage issues. Ms. Modig asked if it was possible in situations such at this where the owner does not live on the property to have a stipulation that would provide an incentive for the owners to enforce the rules, such as a deposit. zs there a way to assure that some of this will not occur in the future? Ms. McPherson stated there is nothing in the City Code which would allow the City to regulate or require a rental owner to establish an escrow account. zf we continue to receive PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 4 complaints, the code enforcement officer would receive those complaints, monitor the situation, and work with the property owner to resolve the issue. The City cannot dictate to the property owner the amount of a damage deposit. Mr. saba asked if most of the violations were from the renters themselves. Ms. McPherson stated, from reading the file, the violations were junk vehicles, inoperable vehicles, vehicles not parked on a hard surface, the occasional bags of refuse, etc. zt appeared that once the letters were sent the situation was rectified quickly. zt seemed that the problem cropped up when tenants changed. Through an education process of the tenant, the standards were then realized. Mr. saba asked if the complaints were typical of the area or does this particular property stand out. Ms. McPherson stated she did not examine the address files of the two adjacent properties. The City does have some perennial code enforcement issues that occur on single family owner-occupied properties as well. 7ust because it is a rental property does not make it worse than a single family home-owner violation. zf the Planning Commission chooses, the request could be tabled in order for staff to obtain information about the two adjacent properties. Ms. Modig asked if the City ever levied a fine for properties who have continual code enforcement violations or is this particular property having a problem because there are over-vigilant neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated typically the way the code enforcement process works is that the code enforcement officer receives a complaint or observes a violation, a notice is sent and the property owner is given 14 days to correct the problem. zf the problem is corrected, the matter is dropped until the next observation or next complaint. zf the owner fails to rectify the problem in 14 days, a second notice is sent allowing 5 days to comply. zf they fail to comply, the City cites the owner. The City does go to court and, if the judge sees fit to agree with the City, the City can levy up to a$700 fine as a misdemeanor violation. Many times the judge will stay a sentence. zt depends on the case and the judge. The City has sent people to jail. Mr. saba stated his concern with the special use permit request is to try to clean up some of these issues. zs there any way to tighten the enforcement as a condition of the special use permit to clean up the property itself and to be sure it stays clean? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated she did not know that the City has the purview to require escrow funds. The Planning Commission can on a stipulation that states, if there are any notices of enforcement violations, the property owner comes back before Planning Commission. zf the Commission feels strongly about this, there is the option to deny the request. Mr. saba stated the petitioner would already have the garage built. we could not ask that the garage be removed. put the Mr. sielaff stated there is nothing then in the code for repeat violations. Ms. McPherson stated, the way the code is currently written, it requires the City to go to court with the property owner. Mr. sielaff comply with request. stated the only way then to provide an incentive to the code is to not approve the special use permit Mr. oquist stated he was not sure that would be an incentive. The petitioner would not then build the garage. The code enforcement is a separate issue and not related to the request. Mr. oquist asked why the first stipulation allowed until November, 1997, to install a hard surface driveway. Ms. McPherson stated, typically in the past, staff has given home owners up to one year to put in a hard surface driveway. zn some instances the homeowner may be constructing the garage themselves, they may decide to wait for six months, or an unforeseen problem arises that delays installation. zf the Planning Commission feels this should be changed, it can recommend something different. Mr. Agarwal stated he was sorry for the enforcement issues. He has other properties that do not have problems. He had a renter that was a problem. He has another renter who was a problem who moved out october 1. Now he has a good family and he hopes these problems will not happen again. He tries his best, but sometimes he does not really know about some of the problems until he gets a notice. Then he acts quickly. Mr. Agarwal stated he wants to build the garage. zn Minnesota, people want to have a garage. He loses many prospective tenants because he does not have a garage. He thought this would help to keep the property clean. He has no problem with the driveway. He has other properties and does not have the same problems there. His intent is to keep it as good as he can. He wants a garage to attract better tenants and keep the property clean. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 6 Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner understood the stipulations and if he had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Agarwal stated he understood the stipulations and that he had no problem with them. Ms. Modig asked the petitioner when this job would be completed. Mr. Agarwal stated he did not have all the proposals from the builder. They cannot lay the floor if it is cold. zf he can get the proposals in a short time, he can still build this year. zf he cannot, it will have to be in the spring. The driveway and garage will be done at the same time. Mr. sielaff asked the petitioner when he purchased the property. Mr. Agarwal stated he bought the property in 1981. Mr. sielaff asked if the petitioner educated the tenants on what they should and should not be storing. Mr. Agarwal stated he had problems with one or two tenants. Most problems are from one tenant who left after one year. He also had a tenant before this one with whom he had some problems but he took care of the problems. Ms. schreiner stated their property is to the south of this property. They have been homeowners there for 25 years. zn this time, they have seen the neighborhood decline due to the apartment building and double bungalows. she became well acquainted with the neighbor behind because of violations due to garbage and debris. when they first moved there, the owners lived on the premises and it was kept up. since that time, it has deteriorated. when the garage was first built in 1987, they were happy to see the garage go up so they did not have to look at the double bungalow itself. The type of people that rent the property are not the best of people. Her husband found out about the proposal for another structure and was told that the property could not be rented without an additional garage. zn 1987 shortly after the garage was built, we had a dry spring. The leaves from the fall were piled behind the garage. They have a seven-foot privacy fence which shields them from this property. At that time, they made calls asking to have that debris removed. zt was never done. Consequently, some kids started a fire which burned their fence. As homeowners, they were responsible. The fire department was notified, the City was notified, and one month after the fire the debris is still there. The debris consists of mattresses, box springs, broken toys, tree limbs and branches, etc. Another structure is a haven for more debris. Every year there is more debris. zt took three calls this spring to have the tree debris removed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 7 Ms. schreiner stated she would like the Commission to see the property. At this time, there is garbage uncontained and stored by the house. Five or six years ago, the existing garage was used to repair used cars. At one time, the tenants living there did not have garbage pick up and the garbage piled up. Ms. schreiner stated, rather than building a garage, she would prefer to see the property fixed up on the inside and make it an attractive property. zf you look at the police reports, Melody Manor itself has very few problems with crime, but they will say that the apartment buildings have had numerous calls. she understands the landlord is an absentee landlord. she did not know how much as an owner he can go in and supervise what is going on when the property is rented. she believed the address listed on the sign-in sheet was incorrect. she provided pictures of the p rope rty . Ms. Holm stated she lives two to three blocks from this property. she has this past summer and winter started walking 74th Avenue. zt has become quite an eyesore. The aerial photo does not do it any justice. The curbs are down. The gutters are gone. out of all those properties, this one is probably the premier property of not good. There is garbage in the back. There are garbage containers. There is not even an enclosure for the garbage. Ms. Holm stated, if you look at the density of the rest of the neighborhood and even if you include the apartment buildings, this is nothing like the density you are going to get on this property once you get two double garages. zt is a long duplex. There are two duplexes that are approximately the same and in approximately the same condition. she has relatives who live in apartments without garages. That is not the issue. The property does not look inviting. As a homeowner in this area and as the perimeter of the area where she walks, this is the one block which is so different from the properties on 75th. The corner properties on 74th are well kept. The rest are a mini sheffield. she does not regard this as a tenants problem. You have a situation where the properties on this block are not kept up. There is no incentive for the people on 74th as non-resident owners to do much about it if the City is following through. she thought the City should think about this block that is an eyesore in the neighborhood. The area is described as lovely Melody Manor. This block is an abhorration for the rest of the area. she did not think that adding structures would solve the problem. Another building will be filled with junk and then add to the problem. she thought there has been more than one call. she thought the building next door also has problems. why reward someone for not maintaining their property by giving them additional structures. zt is just another place to store trash. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 8 MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M. Mr. saba stated he was concerned that the placement of the garage would create another opportunity for storing garbage behind the structure. with the way the garage is angled, there is an area that cannot be used for anything. That is a prime opportunity to store refuse of various types. He is concerned about the way that is laid out. Mr. Kondrick stated it seems there are two issues. one is the special use permit for a garage. The petitioner's concern is to provide a place to park cars. what one does with refuse is not what one talks about with such a request. zt is important, but not really germane to the issue. zt is someone else's responsibility to make sure this does not happen and to have a landlord conform to good practices. The question is whether the special use permit request has anything to do with that item. Ms. saba stated the City has rental property licenses. zn the code, there is specific information about the code and adherence to issues of storage and trash. That enforcement is that the landlord must follow the code or we do not renew the license to continue renting. Has that issue been enforced as a result of enforcement violations? Ms. McPherson stated she would have to look specifically at Chapter 220. The City has refused to issue a rental license for interior situations that create a uninhabitable unit. whether or not the rental license covers exterior storage or if we left that to other sections of the code, she was not sure. zt is rental license renewal time and we could potentially look at some stipulations on the rental license. Mr. oquist stated he agreed with Mr. Kondrick. These are two different issues. He is sympathetic to the neighbors because he has a similar situation in his neighborhood. He did not know what they could do about it. Even though the code enforcement officer comes, the problems continue. on the other hand, he sees this as two different issues. He wants to see the driveway put in at the time the garage is built or you will have a bad situation. He thought they could make a recommendation to staff that they look at how to enforce that situation. He thought through the rental licensing they should be able to enforce that. He thought they should first deal with the special use permit request and then make a separate recommendation to deal with the refuse issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 9 Ms. Modig stated she agreed. she thought they had to deal with the refuse issues separately. By not issuing a special use permit, they could be adding to the problem, and they could deal with it in a different way. she also agreed that she would like to see the driveway put in at the time the garage is constructed. Mr. Oquist stated denying or not denying the special use permit request is not going to clean up the area. Mr. sielaff asked if the rental licensing renewals are being done now or soon. zs this for all rental properties in the City? Ms. McPherson stated the City is in the process now. usually, this is done during the month of september. she believed the licenses expire on August 31. �uring September and October, licenses are renewed and staff will look at things like proper zoning. Mr. sielaff asked what would happen if the license is not renewed. Mr. McPherson stated, if the license is revoked, the owner cannot rent the unit. The tenants must vacate the property and the owner would have no income. Ms. Modig asked if this had happened. Ms. McPherson stated they have had some pretty tough situations where the City has come close to doing this. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the City should get tougher in this area. Mr. sielaff asked why such a review should not be done before the permit is approved. Mr. oquist stated these are two separate issues. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed that these are two different issues. They cannot tie them together as part of this request. The code violations are the responsibility of the code enforcement officer. Mr. sielaff stated he thought there was the potential for the situation to be worse. zn looking at the pictures of the refuse being stored behind the garages, it is out of sight and out of mind for the people who live in the rental unit but not out of sight and out of mind for the other residents. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed but the situation has nothing to do with the request itself. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 10 MOTION by Mr. oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special use Permit, #96-16, by 7uga1 Agarwal, allow accessory buildings, other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on �ot 3, Block 5, Melody generally located at 370-372 - 74th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. to Manor, The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway within 30 days of the construction of the garage. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. vehicles, refuse and other materials shall be stored in compliance with the City Code. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MR. KONDRICK, MS. MODIG, MR. SABA, OQUIST, AND MR. KUECHLE VOTING AYE, AND MR. SIELAFF VOTING NAY, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED A MAJORITY VOTE. MR. BY Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request on October 14. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like to find a way to force the property owner and the tenants to comply with the ordinance. Mr. sielaff stated he thought they were talking about a review of the license renewal for all properties in this area. Mr. saba stated he thought it would be good, before the City Council meeting, to review the problems of code compliance in this area. MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Mr. saba, to have staff review the license renewal process and look at the properties in the area of 74th Avenue, review the complaints, and consider that information when considering the rental license renewal; to check to see if it is possible to pull the rental licenses for the properties in this area with a history of code non-compliance; and to do so prior to the City Council meeting of october 14. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 11 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED, ��ZONING��: By adding Section 205.05.02, 'Application Processes", amending Sections 205.05.03, 205.05.04, adding Section 205.05.07, 'vacations', and renumbering consecutive sections whe re app rop ri ate . MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the state legislature in 1995 adopted what is called Article 18, "�eadline for Agency Action", which requires all agencies who are reviewing land use applications, building permits, wetland replacement plans, septic systems, etc., have 60 days in which to approve these items. zf no action is taken within this time, the item is automatically approved. The City of Roseville had this happen to them where a gas station was approved prior to the City Council finally taking action on the request. staff looked at the land use applications to see what needed to be changed in order to comply with this law. Staff is processing language changes to Chapter 205, zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the largest impact to the Planning Commission is that the ordinance currently allows 60 days to review. This is being changed to 40 days from the time the City receives an application. staff has also established a process for vacations which is currently not in the zoning code. staff is also shortening the process somewhat for plats. They are eliminating the public hearing before the City Council. For rezonings, the City Council still wanted the opportunity to hold a public hearing but staff will now be establishing the dates of the public hearing. The way the process now works is that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, at the next City Council meeting the date for the public hearing is established, the City Council holds the public hearing and make a decision two weeks later. The meeting to establish the public hearing will be eliminated. when the notices for the Planning Commission public hearing go out, the notices will also include the date of City Council public hearings. Mr. oquist asked why the City Council holds the public hearing one night and votes on another night. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council has always wanted to reserve additional time for research for testimony from the public and to have additional time to make decisions. Through this process, that luxury may in all likelihood be eliminated. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 12 The City Council may be required to make a decision on a request the same night of a public hearing, unless they choose to table it. we must be very careful. we are allowed to table requests for an additional 60 days, but we have be careful as to the reasons why the item is being tabled. zn terms of the changes to section 205, it does not affect the way the Planning Commission does business. The language just shortens the time. Mr. oquist asked if the special use permit heard earlier complies with this 60-day window. Ms. McPherson stated the special use processes have always complied with the 60-day window. Ms. McPherson stated, in addition to the zoning ordinance changes, staff will be making minor changes in the subdivision requirements. �ot splits, instead of being an informal hearing, will actually be a public hearing before the Planning Commission. There will also be some changes in the language for submission requirements for the lot split section. The language is somewhat obsolete and will be made to match other sections. Another change is to require a preliminary plat process and a final plat process, and not mix the two. The City Council will review the preliminary plat and then the applicant can submit a separate application for final plat approval based on approval of the preliminary plat. Ms. McPherson stated the other change is to the Charter. The language in the Charter stated that the City Council by ordinance will approve vacations of streets and alleys. This is in conflict with state statute which states these vacations are approved by resolution. The City Attorney will meet with the Charter Commission to present this language change to the charter. Ms. McPherson stated staff is trying to comply with the window as established by the legislature, trying to establish policies for processing applications which comply with the window requirement, and basically not put the City in a situation where an application may be automatically approved without thorough review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance changes. Mr. sielaff stated staff recommends 40 days. zf a request goes beyond the 40 days, is it automatically approved? Ms. McPherson stated no. zf more time is needed, staff will request in writing an extension which would comply with the extension provisions in the statute which is 60 days. Realistically, the whole process could take up to 120 days if we ask for and receive an extension. zf the petitioner did not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1996 PAGE 13 agree to an extension, staff would schedule the request for review by the Planning Commission, recommend denial of the request, and send the request to the City Council who could deny the request if the applicant failed to agree to an extension. Ms. McPherson stated, in order to avoid not getting the proper information, staff is reworking the information checklists. staff will not accept applications that do not include the proper information. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8.43 P.M. MOTION by Mr. saba, seconded by Mr. sielaff, to recommend to the City Council approval of the changes as proposed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBER 2, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording Secretary