Loading...
PL 04/02/2008 - 30941PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Apri12, 2008 Chairperson Savage called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, and Jack Velin David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, and Brad Dunham Julie Jones, Planning Manager APPROVAL OF PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: March 19, 2008 Chairperson Savage pointed out that page 11 of the minutes should be amended to reflect the fact that she voted "Nay" on Item No. 1. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as amended with the correction. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNA1vIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Tezt Amendment, TA #08-01, to modify the R-1, R-2, R-3, and S-1, Residential Zoning Districts to further define the level of housing maintenance reguired in those districts. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING OPENED AT 7:36 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated the requested changes in the language were related to increasing the surface deterioration limitations from 10 percent in several sections of the recommended amendment. Also, the other item of concern was creating accommodations for hardship cases. Staff has taken a look at this and is recommending they change the deteriorating surface limitation on walls, window trims, doors, and eaves, and so�ts. Staff is, however, recommending that they leave the determination for a roof being out of repair at 10 percent, because a roof that is 10 percent deteriorated is likely resulting in serious damage to the interior of the home and should be conected. Ms. Jones stated they are not recommending adding additional language to the Code related to hardship cases because the City has an appeal process already in place in the beginning of the zoning code. Ms. Jones went on to read the applicable section (Section 205.05.6.A). Ms. Jones stated staff thinks this language adequately covers a situation where someone feels staff is not giving them enough time to get a violation corrected or they think the City is being too strict in the interpretation of the Code, the City has a process in place where the property owner can make a request and the Appeals Commission would then consider that matter. Sta.ff had analyzed the 2007 housing condition survey data. further and believes there will be very few properties that will require significant improvements. Ms. Jones stated that staff does work with property owners to try and resolve matters. There was much concern about creating a hardship situation for senior citizen homeowners at the last meeting, but staff actually has more options to offer senior homeowners than others. Staff is also concerned about people in situations where they aze temporarily unemployed or on disability. She emphasized that sta.ff always tries to reach a resolution instead of going to court as court cases do not result in speedy solutions. She also emphasized that negotiating the timeline for solutions to a violation is not a new experience for stafF as we deal with situations on commerciaUindustrial properties regularly. Staff does not issue a citation until it is cleaz a property owner is not going to be cooperative, and their only resolution is going to court. Ms. Jones stated there will be a second public hearing at the City Council level on April 14. Staff is still planning on having the Council conduct a first reading of the ordinance that night, since staff would like to have the amendments in place by the time the Planning summer interns start systematic enforcement in May. Commissioner Sielaff questioned if the appeals process was designed for people to appeal that they should not have to comply with a correction order. Ms. Jones replied, there could be a number of things. They could be azguing that the timeline is unreasonable. Commissioner Sielaff asked, for example, whether they could appeal the cost of the correction? Ms. Jones stated the cost of a correction is the result of staff s order, so they may be arguing "I do not need to replace my roof." There are many different situations that could come up. Commissioner Sielaff stated he thought a hardship issue would be more about the cost to upgrade. This appeals process basically covers situations where a homeowner does not think they should have to do the repairs at all or not within the timeline. 2 Chairperson Savage stated an appeals process can involve all kinds of different factors. Commissioner Sielaff was concerned that the appeal process in place still does not address the issue of the person not being able to afford to pay for it. Chairperson Savage stated that she thought it would certainly be included, right? Ms. Jones stated she feels it would be because if a property owner feels staff s orders are unreasonable, they could approach the City and say, I cannot afford to do this within the time specified and the City could give them more time to get it done and to come up with the money. At some point, however, staff is saying the improvement would need to be made. Delaying these types of repairs is only causing additional damage to the home, so it is in the homeowner's best interest to try and get the repairs done. Chairperson 5avage asked if the City had experience any appeals through this process previously? Ms. Jones replied they have not had this come up in the zoning code. The City is dealing with over 1,000 cases a year for code enforcement items, but staff primarily uses the abatement process to correct violations, and abatement assessments have a separate appeals process. The City only had one appeal out of about 40 abatement cases assessed last yeaz. Commissioner Sielaff asked if a property owner needs to go through the appeal process to ask for an extension? Ms. Jones replied, no, definitely not. The Planning stafF offers reasonable extensions when property owners request it and appeaz to be making progress towazds a solution. There are probably 20 cases on the caseload right now that aze extensions, so it is very common for stafF to do that. Commissioner Saba stated he liked the increase of 10 percent to 25 percent, but he thinks they could be a little bit more proactive on this whole issue if they took those situations at 10 percent and issued a warning letter, letting people know the situation could result in a violation in the future if not repaired. That way people know they have some time to get it repaired. In the case of the roofs, he thinks the 10 percent is very reasonable. His biggest concern is the hardship, and he thinks Ms. Jones has explained there are alternative paths for homeowners. Ms. Jones stated that staff works hazd on public education when it comes to code enforcement. She will take his suggestion and see how they could implement it, but the staff is planning to do everything they can to get the word out to people about the code changes. Chairperson Savage stated she agreed people should be made aware if there is a problem instead of initially sending them a citation. 3 Commissioner Velin asked how do they find out about the violations? Is someone driving around to look at the houses or do people call in and complain? Ms. Jones replied that last year was the first time in nine years that the City financed systematic code enforcement. The City will be doing this again this summer. Also, people can call in and complain. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner SielafF. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE HEARING CLOSED AT 8:02 P.M. C6airperson Savage stated she feels sta.ff has really adequately responded to the concerns of the commissioners including the 10 percent vs. the 25 percent. She would agree with approving the text amendment as amended. MOTION by Commissioner Velin approving Text Amendment, TA #08-01, to modify the R-1, R-2, R-3, and S-1, Residential Zoning Districts to further define the level of housing maintenance required of all residential property owners in those districts. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Receive the Minutes of the March 11, 2008, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Jones stated April 16 is the date of their next meeting. They do have another teleconference prior to the meeting in the Council chambers for the Appeals Commission. They purchased this educational opportunity for the Appeals Commission members, but the Planning Commission members are welcome to attend, too. The teleconference will last from 6 to 7:30pm, so the Planning Commission might have to start the meeting just a little late. 4 ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNA1vIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, -��u.�vi�'I - /��9�� � � Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary + • a CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �,�1 2, � � Name Address/Business