Loading...
11/14/1989 CONF MTG - 5009� CJTYOF FWDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETIPdG �OVEMBER 14, 19�9 — 3:00 P,M, CONFERE�JCE ROOM A 1� SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT� Z� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS� � � unroF F��� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEI��` DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Dl�TE: October 11, 1989 � �' TO: �Pilliam Burns, City Manager ;� FROK: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Steven Barg, Planning Assistant SOBJECT: Consideration of Systematic Code Enforcement HISTORY On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission discussed its concern over the manner in which the City carries out code enforcement. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council support Systematic Code Enforcement, whereby each property in the City would be inspected on a regular basis, even if no complaints are received. The purpose of this is to improve the appearance of the City and to provide a system of fair and equal enforcement. On September 26, 1988, the Council considered the matter and requested that staff prepare a proposal. Subsequently, the attached memo was submitted explaining the present enforcement policy, outlining Systematic Code Enforcement and its benefits, and recommending that Systematic Code Enforcement be adopted. RECOMMENDATION On October 30, 1989, the Council will consider Systematic Code Enforcement at its conference meeting. Staff recommends that this policy be adopted as outlined in the proposal. (The minutes of the above referenced meetings are attached.) SB:ls M-89-621 � � cmroF F�� TO: FROM: DATE: C01N1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' MEMORANDU1Vl William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Steven Barg, Code Enforcement Officer November 2, 1988 REGARDING: Systematic Code Enforcement A. Introduction Most of us desire to live in an attractive, well-kept community that we can look at with pride. It increases the value of our homes and gives us a nice feeling about ourselves and our neighborhoods. For this reason, city ordinances and zoning code requirements have been adopted. However, some people inevitably maintain their properties in a manner such that minimum standards are not met. When this occurs, it is the City's responsibility to step in and correct Droblems_ The City Council has requested that staff look at the possibility of inspecting all properties 'on a regular and proactive.basis', rather than on a complaint basis. In order to decide if the need exists for such a program, an examination of the current code enforcement process is provided first. B. Present Code Enforcement Policy 1• Current Enforcement Procedure Presently, if an individual calls to file a complaint reqarding his neighbor's lot, the following procedure is used. After receiving the complaint, the Code Enforcement Officer investiqates the situation. It it is determined that one or more code violations exist, the property owner is informed in writinq and qiven ten days to bring his property into compliance. Should he do so, he is sent a letter thanking him for the prompt response. However, if the prob2em remains, a second letter is mailed allowinq him tive more days to comply, and he is informed that continued noncompliance alter this time period would lead to leqal action. � Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Page 2 � The next step (if property still does not meet code requirements) is to issue a citation. At this point, the matter is referred to the court system for further action. City Ordinance does provide for a procedure by which the Council can order the abatement of a nuisance (City cleans the property and owner is assessed for cost) although the provision is seldom used. Problems/Need for Improvement There are several problems with the present system which bring about the need to look at Systematic Code Enforcement. First, since violations are addressed on a complaint basis, those property owners receiving noncompliance letters often feel as though they are being "picked on" and sinqled out. They argue that others have worse violations and quickly point their fingers at other homes in the neighborhood. In addition, this system rewards the chronic complainer, whose requests are always being investigated, while many less forceful individuals quietly put up with eyesores in their areas for years. Finally, this approach does not make the most effective use of Code Enforcement Officer time as it results in spotty enforcement throughout the City with much driving between locations for inspections, followup, etc. It appears as though, while complaints need prompt attention, some organized effort should be undertaken to clean up entire neighborhoods instead of just individual homes. C. Systematic Code Enforcement l. Benefit Systematic Code Enforcement would improve the situation by providinq a more fair and equitable method of evaluating problem properties. Each lot would be inspected on a regular basis, thus assurinq that all code violations in the City are corrected reqardless of whether or not anyone complains. The impact that such a program would have on a neighborhood miqht be extensive. Systematic Code Enforcement Navember 2, 1988 Page 3 Once things started to look really nice in an area, residents would likely take more pride in their homes and yards. People might even feel a sense of neighborhood identity as a result of a more attractive appearance. Complaints would still be received and processed as alvays, but we feel that Systematic Code Enforcement would serve as a positive tool to improve the City. 2. Feasibility The idea of having a proactive code enforcement policy is definitel� feasible, although the priority ranking assigned to the project will determine how often each area is inspected. The City would be divided into sections and a projected schedule desiqned for completing each section according to a proposed timetable. A decision must be made as to how much staff time should be coaunitted to this plan, and it should be understood that during certain months when the workload is heavy (numerous complaints, etc.), limited proactive enforcement can occur. With this constraint in mind, Systematic Code Enforcement is a very workable idea. 3. Implementation There are four major steps which need to be followed in order to implement this program successfully. These are as follows: a) petermine Priorities "Checklist" - A welZ-organized checklist should be developed for use as an inspection quide. This form Will contain the ordinance/code requirements which are being reviewed when a property is evaluated. It will ensure that all properties are inspected usinq the same criteria, and it will serve as a qood reference for keeping this project�s priorities cZearly focused at all times. b) t�eviewJImprove Weak or Unclear Codes - In order to properly carry out Systematic Code Enforcement, we must have stronq and clearly understood ordinances and code requirements. Undoubtedly, the City will be tested on our enforcement practices, and we must have full confidence that citations written can stand in court . , Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Page 4 Two current problem areas (definition and enforcement) involve the parkinq of vehicles in front yards and illeqal home occupations. Clearing up these and other codes will be a key to making the proqram work, and we would work with the City Attorney in accomplishinq this. c) j�ppropriate Public Relations - Once we have completed the previous two steps, we must use qood public relations sa that residents are aware of our plan and will view it in a positive way. We spoke with Mike Osmundson, who works for the City of Minneapolis and has been involved with its proactive code enforcement proqram which began last year. He said that they put Systematic Code Enforcement substantial advanced warning (through newspaper articles) that the program was going to start and advising residents as to what inspectors would be looking for and why. These articles stressed the positive results which occur when a neighborhood is beautified. In addition, prior to the inspection of a qiven section, a neighborhood meetinq was held (a staff person and the area councilperson were present) so that the program could be further explained and residents miqht voice their concerns. According to Mr. Osmundson, Fridley residents would better understand and cooperate with the proqram if it follows a solid positive public relations campaign. d) Inspection�Followup Procedure - For the reason of "positive publicity" noted earlier, it is recommended that a sliqhtly lonqer tfine period be allowed for compliance than in a normal complaint situation. This is because we, as the so-called "complainant" in these cases, have as our primary interest the notion of improving the City as opposed to maximizinq citations issued. A qood idea would be to allow a total of thirty days instead of fifteen (a 20-day notice followed by a 10-day final) for compliance, as we are likely to encounter some rather larqe violations which have existed tor a long time but have never been reported. This should assist us in presentinq a positive image by showinq fairness in dealinq with violations. Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Page 5 D. Summary/Recommendation Staff recommends that the City adopt a program of Systematic Code Enforcement as an important tool in promoting a better urban environment, and that it do so under the quidelines outlined in this memorandum. JR/BD/SB:ls M-88-309 pIA.►�.'ZNG CC�t�'iI SSION MEE.'T Il�G . SEF'TII�+IDF�t 14 , 19 8 8 PAGE 13 � b. Code Fhforeanent in the City of flridley NLs. Sherek stated she was ane of the vocal people calling City Hall aver the last f ive years oortplai ni n� aY�out abrioxiotis sites in the nei�borfiood. She is really getting to feel that the only places that get hit with any reguests to oor�ply with City Co3es in Fridley are pev�le that are either requesting sa� type of building permit or special use peanit or whose neighbors oortplain to City iiall. Ms. Shere�: stated that in N,inneapolis once or t�ice a year the�• flood sm�e o` the neighk�orhoods with oode cartpliance situations. They write warnings to all people not in oairttpliance with city oodes. She stated she would like to see the City of Fridley do sat�ething similar and then folla: through with the aode enforcanent. Zi�e citizens could be notified via the media prior to this city-kZde code enfo�rnent search. NLs. Sherek state� ti�;• need to do a c�ode ca�liance thing, not basec on just sarei�od}�'s oorrplain�.s or sa�oc.'y's zequest to upgrade a propert}�, but basec on those pevple ma):ing messes in Fridle}�. She stated her neighborhood is really getting to look like a dt�. Mr . Rd�ertson stated he appreci ated and agreed � ith Ms . Shere�:' s re�a rks . He stated that the history of oode enforcenent over the last five years � is that it has been relegated to part-time tar�orary �ployees . The�� have finally been successful in getting a full-ti.me career oode enforce- ment officer, Steve Barg. He has been given a job description to n�t only resporr3 to oo�laints, but also to design and irr�lement systanatic code enforcerient throughout the City. Within that, Mr. Rcabertson stated he has given Mr. Barg discretion to take a lodc at the City and to ma}:e scme recemnendations on haa to proceed with systematic eode enforcenent. rlr. Barna stated one of the prablans has been the lack of "teeth" in the enforcesrent of a lot of oodes. Ms. Castle stated also the stipulations bo building pez�nits are not real2y motzitored, She has been wozicing on trying to change that, and in the past few wee3cs, she, along with Michele McPherson, the Landscape Architect, and Steve Barg have gone thra�ugh all the building pezmits designating areas to inspect. She is rr�w reviewing those inspections and in the next w�eek she will start oontacting these peaple. «a� success she will have, she d.id not kr�vw. She did knvw that the Zoning Code is not strong in the enforcement of any kind of peYrnits• Ms. Sherek stated it appears that city staff is going in the right direction. She felt Mfiat is really neecied is a total oatpliarice inspection of the City. M(7TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Barna, to reoartmend to the city Co— unc 1 that they support a systenatic c�ode enforanent in the City .of � Fridley. UPUN A VOICE V�0►rE, AI�L VCrTING AYE, VICE-L��1IRPgiSON KOt�RICK DDCI�'+RF� TI� Mf.7TI0N CARRgD U�t�4N�iW SLY . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL IdEETING OF SEPTEKBER 26 1986 Paae 8 of this property and didn't especia�ly feel a commercial use was wrong. �' ' felt the question is really what is the best use of the land. Mr. Herrick stated the market value for a cingle family bome on this property would be very low. MoTION by Councilman Billings to qrant special use permit, SP �88-12, with the following stipulations: (1) petitioner aqrees that any future re-use of the building is subject to finding, throuqh the special use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible with the currounding neighborhood; (2) a portion of Lot 29, approximately 1,604 square feet will be leased from the City for S1.00 per year as lonq as the business is in operation at this site; ,, (3) landscaping to be installed as per plan by September 1, 1989; (4) a performance bond or letter of credit for 3 percent of the construction value be given to the City prior tq issuance of the building permit; (5) parking demand shall not exceed nine spaces unless additional spaces are provided; (6) install six inch concrete curbing around the entire perimeter of the parking lot including driveway opening by September 1, 1989; (7) parking lot to be sealcoated and ctriped with nine spaces by September 1, 1989; (8) bollards are to be removed upon installation of landscaping; and (9) petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting grass and eliminating weeds. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Schneider stated if the building had been destroyed, he felt the S-1 zoning is very specific and it could not have been rebuilt. He stated he does agree it is an eyesore. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated under the S-1 zone, the property would ha�e reverted to R-1, if the structure had been destroyed. She stated she is in favor of this business on the property, but did not like to rezone for one parcel. Councilman Billings stated he would aqree that by granting the special use permit, the strictest interpretation is not being applied. Mayor Nee stated there have been proposals for various uses for this property, therefore, the property has not really been abandoned. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAi�N ON THE �BOVE MOTION, alI voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. B. �ESOLUTION NO 83-1988 APPROVZNG A SUBDIVISION j�OT SPLIT L S /88-04 TO SPLIT A FOUR FOOT �'RIANGLE OFF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF IAT 2. �LOCK 2 MARIAN HILLS SECOND �DDITION TO BE �OMBINED WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, LOT 1. BLOCK 2 MARIAN HILIS SECOND I►DDITION, �iLL TO CORRECT A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DONE IN 1969 jGENERALLY IACATED AT 1350 52ND J,VENUE AND 1340 �2ND AVENUE BY STANLEY �ND PHYLLIS PROKOPOWICZI: MOTION by Councilman Billinqs to adopt Resolution No. 83-1988. Seconded ��• Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Kayor Nee declai the motion carzied unanimously. � C. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORTING SYSTEIrIATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT � /� IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: FRIpLEY CITY COUNCIL I+�ETING OF SEPTEliBER 2� -� aR Paae 9 JTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this item to staff for a proposal, in consultation with the City l�ttorney's Office, to be presented at some � � future Conference Neeting. Seconded by Councilman Hillinqs. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, I�iayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. D. EM OM E AP I+II�fISS ON G 1988: 1. �ONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE VxR �68-22, TQ jtEDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 TO 5 FEET; TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 7 FEET. TO REDUCE THE MINZMUM HARD SURFACE �ETBACK FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 20 FEET TO 7 FEET; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM HARD SURFACE SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET AT THE SIDE IAT �,�v� �rn 1T.Tl1L1 su aTU rnNnTT7oNING. HEATING P,ND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR OFFICE ON LOTS 27 AND 28 BLACK 12 HYDE PARK THE SAME BEING 5973 3RD STREET N E BY AONALD DICKISON: MOTION by Councilman Billings to qrant the variances, VAR �68-22, to zeduce the side yard setback from 15 to 5 feet; to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 to 7 feet; to reduce the minimum hardsuzface setback from a public right- of-way from 20 to 7 feet; and to reduce tAe minimum hardsurface setback from 5 to 0 feet at the side lot line, but to deny the variance to reduce the :nimum hardsurface setback from the main building from 5 to 0 feet, subject Lo the following stipulations: (1) petitioner aqrees that any future re-use of the building is subject to finding, through the special use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible with the surroundinq neighborhood; (2) a portion of Lot 29, approximately 1,604 square feet, will be leased from the City for 51.00 per year as lonq as the business is in operation; (3) landscaping to be installed as per plan by September 1, 1989; (4) a performance bond or letter of credit for 3 percent of the construction value be given to the City prior to issuance of the building permit; (5) parking demand shall not exceed nine spaces unless additional spaces are provided; (6) install six inch concrete curbing around the entire perimeter of the parking lot including driveway openinq by September 1, 1989; (7) parking lot to be sealcoated and striped with nine spaces by September 1, 1989; (8) bollards are to be removed upon installation of landscapinq; and (9) petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting qrass and eliminating weeds. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the sotion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 1988. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the �otion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF RECEIVING BIDS �ND 1�iWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE MOORE t'KE WEST BASIN AERATOR PROJECT NO 182 (TABLED 9/12/88L: ""c. Burch, �ssistant Public i�lozks Director, stated four bids vere received .�r this project and staff is recommendinq the low bid from Sevcon, Znc. for 515,476 be accepted. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to zeceive the bids: � � unroF F��� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WHY PLAN? C011MAUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' MEMORANDUM October 26, 1989 William Burns, City � �. Manager �' Jock Robertson, Community Development Director .� Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant C�,omprehensive Plan Process The City Council directed staff to place this item on a City Council conference agenda to discuss the comprehensive plan process. Our goal is to make the comprehensive plan a more usable and visible document for the City Council, the commission members and City staf f. We believe that the Plan should be regarded as more than just a document which satisfies a statutory requirement. The existing Plan was entitled "The Plan for the '80's". The City needs to revise the Plan in order to compile its statement of goals and objectives for this community in the next ten years. The City must also comply with Metropolitan Council recent revisions to its regional plans (transportation policy plan and waste water management plan). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission discussed the comprehensive plan revision process at the July 12, 1989 and the Auqust 16, 1989 meetings. The Planning Commission recommended that the Plan have a ten year horizon, as was done in the 1980's. The Commission expressed the need to have a proactive plan which can identify strateqies which can be implemented in a realistic time frame. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to create a year 2000 land use plan. Through the comprehensive plan update process, the various land uses in the City will be updated, and any changes should be made during the comprehensive plan process. After the Plan adoption, the City could then pursue rezoning of properties inconsistent with the land use plan. The Planning Commission recommended that the followinq review process be implemented: � Comprehensive Plan Process October 26, 1989 Page 2 A. Identify items to revise in each chapter and prepare draft outlines - July 1989 to January 1, 1990. B. Prepare drafts of each chapter; review with Planning Commission and City Council - January 1, 1990 to July 1, 1990. C. Conduct informal meetings with neighborhood groups (block captains, chamber of commerce, Ward Councilmembers, and other groups) - August 1990 to September 1990. D. Planning Commission conducts two public hearings - October 1990 to November 1990. � E. Revise draft for Planning Commission action - November 1990. F. Establish City Council public hearing - December 1990. G. City Council conducts public hearing - January 1991. H. Revise Plan for City Council action, determine need for another hearing, and/or adopt revised Plan - February 1991. I. Submit to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. More time may be needed in the period between January 1, 1990 to July 2, 1990 in preparing the actual drafts of each chapter. Each draft is proposed to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with copies sent to the City Council as we progress through the process. Prior to conducting public meetings, either informal or formal, staff will need City Cour�cil concurrence of the Planning Commission's proposed draft. We will review the proposed draft at the City Council conference sessions or after City Council meetings. The Planning Commission has started to draft tentative outlines of each chapter of the Plan in order to guide staff's research. No policy making has been discussed since at this time we need to gather basic information regarding each topic. Attached are copies of the outlines they have reviewed to-date. CITY COUNCIL RECO�NDATION Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planning Commission's approach to the comprehensive plan revision process; however, any additions or revisions to the process will be welcomed in order to achieve a document that is usable and a community-wide statement of the City's goals and objectives. BD/dn M-89-653 LAND USE I. Introduction II. Existing Land Use Inventory A. Residential 1. Single Family 2. Low Density 3. Medium Density 4. High Density B. Commercial 1. Office 2. Neighborhood Commercial 3. General Commercial 4. Shopping Center . 5. Multi-tenant buildings C. Industrial 1. Light 2. Heavy D. Public/Quasi-Public E. Parks/Open Space F. Inventory Vacant Parcels 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial G. Nonconforming Uses H. Inventory Blighted Areas I. Redevelopment Areas III. Define Land Use Goals and Objectives IV. Analyze Neighborhood Areas A. Reevaluate Perceived Neighborhood Map 8. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area Land Use Chapter Page 2 V. Analyze Commercial and Industrial Corridors A. Identify Corridor B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies VII. Implementation Strategies A. Update City Codes B. Redevelopment Projects C. Systematic Code Enforcement I. II. HOUSING Introduction and Definitions A. Life Cycle Housing B. Housing Type Definitions Existing Housing Inventory A. Number of Single Family Detached B. Number of Single Family Attached 1. Townhouse 2. Condominium 3. Double Bungalow 4. Triplex C. Number of Multiple Family l. Apartments 2. Group Facilities a. Fridley Convalescent b. Lynwood Care Center c. Group Homes D. Number of Senior Housing 1. Multiple Family 2. Single Family E. Mobile Homes F. Rental versus Owner-Occupied Units G. Income H. Race I. Age J. Head of Household Housing Chapter Page 2 III. Housing Stock Condition A. Define Terms for Exterior Condition B. Define Terms for Interior Condition (Multiple Family Units) C. Tabulation of Housing Stock Condition 1. Single Family Detached 2. Single Family Attached 3. Multiple Family 4. Mobile Home 5. Total D. Identify Areas of Substandard Housing 1. Neighborhood Analysis IV. Existing Housing Supply A. Vacancy versus Occupancy 1. Single Family 2. Multiple Family B. Housing Costs l. Rental Ranges 2. owner-Occupied C. Income D. Housing Tenure - V. Housing Demand A. Land Availability B. Household Formation C. Household Size D. Household Projections Housing Chapter Page 3 E. Population Projections F. Employment Projection VI. Analysis of Gaps in Housing Continuum A. Identify Housing Types which are Needed in Relation to Analysis of Demand and Household Projections. B. Analyze Neighborhood Areas 1. At risk 2. Standard 3. New { C. Analyze Areas for New or Rehabilitated Housing Opportunities VII. Existing Housing Programs A. Federal l. Section 8 2. Section 202 3. Section 235 4. Section 236 5. CDBG 6. Other B. State 1. MHFA 2. Other C. Anoka County D. Local VII. Goals and Policies Housing Chapter Page 4 IX. Strategies A. Discuss Strategies to Provide Types of Housing Styles 1. Relate to Life Cycle Theory B. Strategies to Improve Substandard Housing C. Strategies to Maintain Standard Housing � D. Strategies to Remove and Replace Substandard Multiple Housing , ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES I. Introduction II. Inventory of Natural Features A. Woodlands and Vegetation 1. Oak/Oak Savannah 2. Riverine Woodlands/Flood Plain Woodlands 3. Urban Forest B. Waterbodies - Water Courses 1. Lakes 2. Rivers, Streams, Creeks 3. Other (Harris Pond) C. Geology 1. Regional 2. Local Subsurface 3. Local Surface 4. Aquifers D. Wetlands 1. Location 2. Characteristics 3. Regulatory Agencies a. Minnesota DNR b. Army Corp of Engineers c. US Fish and Wildlife Service d. Watershed Districts E. Air Quality 1. PCA Standards Environmental Resources Outline Page 2 F. Historic Sites 1. Locke House/Banfill Tavern 2. Hayes Annex 3. Moore Lake Dunes III. Inventory Vacant Parcels for Natural Resources; Unique Features A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial IV. Threats to Natural Resources A. Vegetation l. Oak Wilt 2. Dutch Elm 3. Purple Loosestrife B. Waterbodies 1. Storm Water Runoff 2. Pollution a. Industrial Waste b. Conunercial Chemicals (1) Fertilization (2) Herbicides (3) Pesticides C. Air Quality 1. Traffic Impact 2. Industrial V. Goals and Objectives