Loading...
PLM 08/15/2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 15, 2018 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Mike Heintz, and Rachel Schwankl, MEMBERS ABSENT: Brad Sielaff, Davis Ostwald, and Mark Hansen OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Stromberg, Planner Amy Kempf, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist Todd Ofstun, TCO Design Nate Running, Watermark Estella Melton, 5330 Fourth Street NE Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Joanne Zmuda, 6051 Fourth Street NE Approval of Minutes: May 16, 2018 MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #18-03, by Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Fridley, LLC, to allow the construction of an addition to the existing Watermark Assisted Living and th Transitional Care Facility at 5300 4 Street. This addition will expand the existing building and th will occupy the properties located at 5320 and 5326 4 Street. A total of 18 additional care units are proposed. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:01 P.M. Stacy Stromberg , Planner, stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow an expansion th of the existing facility. This building expansion will utilize the lots at 5320 and 5326 4 Street and will add 18 additional care units to the existing 28-unit building. Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner notes that the existing facility opened in 2017 and is already full. This location has turned out to be exceptional for this use and, as a result of that success, the petitioner is seeking this special use permit for a building expansion. The petitioner has signed purchase agreements th with the property owners of both 5320 and 5326 4 Street that are contingent upon the City approval of the special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated the existing project received special use permit approval from the City Council in June of 2016. To get to that approval, there were several Planning Commission and City Council Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 14 meetings and modifications to the size of the building and parking areas. Since the construction of the building has been complete, there have overall been very few complaints. Staff has had conversations with the owner about employees parking on the street, and that issue seems to have been resolved. However, staff is recommending a stipulation on this permit that requires staff to use on-site parking. Other than that, this use has been a good fit for the neighborhood. Ms. Stromberg stated convalescent homes, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities are a permitted special use in the R-3 zoning district. When the petitioner applied for their special use permit in the past, they described the use as a comprehensive home health care use and so they decided as the City that was most closely related to a convalescent home or an assisted living facility. Because of the addition the City is making the petitioner go through the process again. Ms. Stromberg stated the existing facility is 3 stories, has a footprint of 5,450 square feet and has 28 care units, along with common areas, indoor parking, office space and a kitchen. The proposed addition will also be 3 stories, will have a footprint of 5,284 square feet and will be connected to the existing building through a 2-level skyway. The lower level of the addition will be an open garage with 12 parking spaces that will be accessed from the alley and the 2 upper floors will have 9 units on each level, with a gathering area and a staff office. Total number of care units between the 2 buildings will be 46 once the addition is completed. Ms. Stromberg stated as part of the proposed addition, the petitioner will be converting the existing enclosed 6-car garage on the lower level to usable space for staff and guests. After the existing facility was constructed, the petitioner noted to staff that there is a need to have more common area for the residents and office area for the staff. So by converting the existing garage space to office space, a conference room, bathroom, a large dining room with an activity/theatre space, they are gaining the additional common space needed. The residents of the new building will be using the dining facilities that are within the existing building. The parking stalls that will be lost as a result of this conversion will be added with the construction of the addition. Ms. Stromberg stated shortly after the building was constructed, the petitioner had articulated to staff there seemed to be a need for more space for residents of the facility and they did not have quite enough. They had the care suites but not enough space to just hang out or do activities together. By converting the garage space, it will give them the space they need. rd Ms. Stromberg stated the site will be accessed by vehicular traffic from 53 Avenue, off the existing alley, which is where the site’s parking is also located. Residents of the facility will not drive. The petitioner is proposing to construct 12 covered parking stalls in the lower level of the addition and construct an additional 15 surface parking stalls for a total of 27 stalls. The building will only be accessed th from 4 Street through the use of a sidewalk. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code does require 23 parking stalls for a nursing home use or assisted living use. As she stated the petitioner is planning on constructing 27 so they do meet the Code requirements. Because of the concerns from the last time around with parking and the conversations the staff had with the existing facility, they will add the extra stipulation making sure the employees park in the lot. The City does expect visitors to park on the street now and then. That is okay, but they just want to make it clear about the employees. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 3 of 14 Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit as these types of uses are a permitted use in the R-3, Multi-Family zoning district. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. The petitioner shall obtain a demolition permit prior to removal of the existing building th on the properties located at 5320 and 5326 4 Street. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition. 3. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements for the addition. 4. The petitioner shall complete and file a lot combination application to add the parcels at thth 5320 and 5326 4 Street to the existing parcel addressed as 5300 4 Street. 5. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7. If the transitional care/assisted living use changes, the special use permit shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. 8. If on-street parking becomes evident as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. 9. All employee parking shall be on-site, no employee parking shall occur on the street. 10. The enclosed parking area in the existing building shall not be converted to livable space until the parking area is constructed for the addition. 11. Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the Petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an extension. Chaiperson Kondrick stated one of the problems they had the first time around was there was an automobile repair shop about one-half block away. They had or wanted to park cars they were working on on the street or around these lots and neighbors had complained about that. Have they been spoken to recently? Are they aware of not being able to do that? Ms. Stromberg replied that issue has seemed to resolve itself as a result of the new building. They did receive the public hearing notice about the hearing tonight, and she has not heard from them. Commissioner Heintz stated there was no stipulation for a building permit for the change in the old building. Would they want to add that? Ms. Stromberg replied they could certainly add that. The conversersion would be part of the building application process when they submit to the City, but they could amend the stipulation to add conversion of the existing space too. Commissioner Oquist asked where were the additional 15 parking stalls going to be constructed? Ms. Stromberg replied everything will be off the alley. There will be 12 parking stalls under the building addition and the remainder of the stalls are in the parking lot on the back side of both buildings. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner if he was in agreement with the stipulations? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 4 of 14 Todd Ofstun , TCO Design, replied, yes. Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Ostun whether he had any questions about them? Mr. Ofstun replied, no. The goal is definitely to keep the employees in the garage area so guests/visitors can park next to the building. There will be 15 open spots. There are 4 stalls proposed on the north side by the existing garage and then the other 11 are close to the entry to the building. They also have provided parking numbers from what the current staffing is now, the number of average visits, the number of cars, etc. So they know in the future they will need an average of 20 stalls to accommodate everyone. That would fluctuate from time to time, however they are comfortable with the 27 they are providing. One of the issues currently is access to the parking garage. Right now it has a door which is not always easy for staff to access. The new covered parking area won’t be accessed through a door, it will be open. Commissioner Schwankl stated she is just curious what is the average number of rooms for Watermark’s properties? Mr. Ofstun stated this is Watermark’s first facility. Commissioner Schwankl asked Mr. Ofstun in the near future do they think they will be expanding again or is this their target number of units? Nate Running , Watermark, replied most facilities similar to this range in size from 20 to 50 units. He got involved in developing this kind of development because his grandfather had Alzheimers and he was in charge of his financial wellbeing. He flew out to Colorado to find a place for him to live, and every single unit was like an institution or hospital. He came up with the idea of where would he want to put his grandfather. It was more of a residential feel where you are walking into a greatroom or a diningroom just like you would at your house. So this is going to be it for this development. They do not want a large institutional environment. All the staff are friendly with the residents. It is more of a home environment. They are working on a project in Golden Valley. That is going to be 25 units. So it is that 25-50 unit range. They were not really expecting to expand from the 28, but the demand has been overwhelming. It is local people who are living there. Estelle Melton , 5330 Fourth Street NE, stated she will be right next door to the proposed building. She thinks it is the best thing for their neighborhood. Commissioner Kondrick asked Ms. Melton why did she think so? Ms. Melton replied, it cleaned the area up and made it look neater. She is so glad they are addressing the parking because that has been a problem. The thing that bothered her the most was the parking at night and it the winter because it would clog up the end of the block. If that is being taken care of, that is wonderful. Her concern is she is getting ready to sell her house. Her fear is that when they are building the addition how that may hurt her selling her house. She is also concerned that if she stays what kind of damage can be caused with the building equipment so close to her house. Her house is probably about 123 years old. Chairperson Kondrick stated from what she heard this evening as to when they are going to start building, have most of her concerns been addressed? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 5 of 14 Ms. Melton replied, most of them. She still worries about the big equipment, what damage could possibly happen, and who is responsible for that if it was damaged in any way. Chairperson Kondrick stated they can understand Ms. Melton’s question about the damage to her property and so on. Mr. Ofstun stated he would talk to her after the meeting but understands her concern. One of the things he and Ms. Stromberg have gone through over the last week is he had mistakenly put the building 33 feet from the north lot line and the setback is actually 40 feet. So that will provide a greater buffer between where the construction is going to be and the structure on Ms. Melton’s property. A lot of times they only have a 10 feet setback to work with and then have to put down shoring, so 40 feet will be a good distance. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:23 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated they do not have the issues they had the first time around that is for sure. Commissioner Oquist stated that is for sure. Most of them have been addressed and taken care of. Commissioner Schwankl stated there is a need for it this use. Chairperson Kondrick stated he cannot see what is wrong with this idea. It is a great one and serves a useful purpose. The parking thing is solved, and he has no problem with this. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving Special Use Permit, SP #18-03, by Watermark Enhanced Care Suites of Fridley, LLC, to allow the construction of an addition to the existing Watermark Assisted th Living and Transitional Care Facility at 5300 4 Street with the following stipulations as modified: 1. The petitioner shall obtain a demolition permit prior to removal of the existing building th on the properties located at 5320 and 5326 4 Street. 2. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction of the addition and modification of the existing garage space. 3. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements for the addition. 4. The petitioner shall complete and file a lot combination application to add the parcels at thth 5320 and 5326 4 Street to the existing parcel addressed as 5300 4 Street. 5. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permit. 7. If the transitional care/assisted living use changes, the special use permit shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. 8. If on-street parking becomes evident as a result of this use, the special use permit and options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Council at the owner’s expense. 9. All employee parking shall be on-site, no employee parking shall occur on the street. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 6 of 14 10. The enclosed parking area in the existing building shall not be converted to livable space until the parking area is constructed for the addition. 11. Per Section 205 of the Fridley City Code, this Special Use Permit will become null and void one year after the City Council approval date if work has not commenced or if the Petitioner has not petitioned the City Council for an extension. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #18-02, by the City of Fridley, to allow the code on Exterior Storage to be applied to an entire property and not just what is seen from the public right- of-way. MOTION by Commissioner Schwankl to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:27 P.M. Amy Kempf , Neighborhood Preservation Specialist, stated the purpose of this text amendment is to allow for the outside storage code to be applied to the entire property, not just what is seen from the public right-of-way. Ms. Kempf presented a picture of an example of a backyard from an abatement the City had done. There is storage against the garage that couldn’t be seen from the public right-of-way, but because staff was abating stuff in the front yard, once on the property, they were able to see the backyard. Because it was hidden by a fence, under the current code, staff wouldn’t be able to do anything about the storage. Ms. Kempf stated the City’s current City Code states “All materials shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened, so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way except for stacked firewood, in the side or rear yard.” If anyone were to have outdoor storage and accumulation like they see in the picture of junk, debris, old lawn mowers that have been there since 2005, the City Code does not currently allow the City to do anything about it even though there are five neighbors who can see into a yard and call the City to do something about it. If City staff cannot see it from the public right-of-way, they are not able to currently address this. Calls come in weekly asking for staff to get involved in outdoor storage cases that can’t be seen from the public right-of-way. Ms. Kempf stated the League of Minnesota Cities has a handbook and a memo for public works staff and city staff who are entering private property. This Code says, “If a code violation clearly is visible from an abutting public property (such as a public street or sidewalk), or a private property on where the city has permission to be present – these violations are considered to be in “plain view”. When she gets phone calls from complainants who say there is junk and debris in my neighbor’s backyard, and it can’t be seen from the public right-of-way, but the complainant gives staff permission to view the items from their Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 7 of 14 backyard, staff would be able to address it, if the code was changed to what the League of Minnesota Cities states. Ms. Kempf stated she’s received 10 complaints within 7 businesses days of cases where outdoor storage was in areas that couldn’t be seen from the public right-of-way and staff had to tell the complainants that nothing could be done if the items can’t be seen from the public right-of-way. The complaints ranged from plywood in the backyard, steel, scrap metal, mattresses, furniture, etc. and these complaints occur on a constant basis. Ms. Kempf stated the Code change would not give City staff permission just to walk into residents’ backyards. Staff would only be able to view the yards when people are inviting them into their backyards or complainants are calling and giving them permission to view from their backyards. Staff can verify that the items are there and address the violation from there. We would address is like we currently do with violations, first inspect the property, send a 15-day letter, then send a final 5-day letter, and then start the abatement process. Again it is not something where we wouldn’t go in and immediately take the items; we would handle it the same as if it was it was a violation the front yard. This Code is just allowing City staff to treat the front and back yard the same. Commissioner Oquist stated Ms. Kempf keeps referring to backyard. She might want to change that because in his neighborhood they have somebody who has outside storage violations in the front yard that is an eyesore. Ms. Kempf replied, this change would address any part of the yard. It’s typically the backyards that are screened from the public right-of-way, but this Code change would allow for any part of the yard that is currently screened or not in public view. With this change if they get permission to see it from another point then they would be able to address it. Chairperson Kondrick stated just out of curiosity, those complaints she received in that short span of time, were those properties rental units? Ms. Kempf replied, she did not know that off the top of her head. From her work as code enforcement specialist, she sees the same amount of complaints for rental as she does for normal residential properties. With the rental program in the City they do a really good job about checking each property for all types of violations when they do their inspections. There is really good communication between code enforcement and the rental departments so if something is a violation, we work together to resolve it. Ms. Kempf stated the new language would be that all materials shall be stored in a building with the exception of split and neatly stacked firewood, boats, non-motorized camping and trailers and utility trailers in the side or rear yard. They are just changing the language so they can better control when there is a junkyard is someone’s backyard. Ms. Kempf stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing to allow for public comment on the text amendment and to provide a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Oquist asked how will this be enforced? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Ms. Kempf stated they will treat it how the City currently does its code enforcement process. She inspects properties usually within three days of getting the complaint. She would then meet with the neighbor who is letting her view it and, after viewing the Code violation, she would send the tenant/resident/property owner a 15-day letter. After the 15-day letter, which includes the Code language they are violation in and how to resolve the violation, and after the 15 days if they still have not resolved the issue, staff sends a final letter saying they have 5 days to remove it or we will start either a citation or abatement process. Ms. Kempf stated staff prefers to do abatements with this type of violation, so after a final letter is sent out, a 20-day abatement letter gets mailed out which includes the City’s procedure on abatements, give them information if they choose to do a hearing and oppose the abatement. If they still have not cleaned it up after 20 days, then the City would hire their contractor to have the items abated. Any items deemed of value are stored for 30 days, and they have 30 days to pay and, if not, the invoice is assessed to the property. Chairperson Kondrick stated that is fair. Commissioner Heintz stated, for example, what if he is going to be building a deck and he has a bunch of wood in the backyard. Does he have to store that in a building until they build the deck? Ms. Kempf replied, that is something they would work with the property owner on and the building permit staff. Working to create a timeline so it is not a project that you hope to do some day and the wood just stays there. However, if you are currently working on the project then if can be there. Commissioner Heintz and it is the same thing with landscaping materials, etc. Ms. Kempf replied, yes, and this is something where the key word is “storage” where if you are currently working, mowing your lawn, in the process of a project then it is not being stored. However, if these items have been there for months that is when the City has the text amendment for this purpose. Commissioner Schwankl stated the one thing she noticed when reading through this is some of the changes appear to require that only the front yard have a hard surface drive and some require the front, side, and rear yard have a hard surface drive for their non-motorized camping trailers, utility trailers, boats, etc. Shouldn’t it be that hard surface is only for the front yard storage? Ms. Kempf stated, yes, and she apologized that was the wrong copy in their packet but that is what the intention was for the boats and trailers is on the front yard would need to have a paved surface. For the side and rear yard you are not required to park the recreational vehicle on a paved surface. Pam Reynolds , 1241 Norton, stated first of all she is hoping her comments will be listened to and she understands what the text amendment is looking to correct. She has a concern with private property rights. They also have a City Code which is Section 110.02 and in there under Section (5) it spells out that you cannot have certain things in the open. So, that somewhat addresses this issue. The City also has a process in place that would allow for if there is a storage issue or public nuisance that is dangerous or not just a storage issue that they can seek a warrant to investigate the property. That is also allowed by law. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Reynolds stated under City Code 110.02, Section (5), at the top of that it says that they are going to follow Minn. Stat. §§ 609.74 and 609.745. Under that statute, 609.74, in order to be considered a public nuisance which outdoor storage falls under, then it has to affect a considerable number of members of the public. If her neighbor looks into her backyard and does not like her garden potting bench, too bad. It is in her backyard, you cannot see it from the street, she is not moving it anywhere, it is staying right where it is and it is not affecting a considerable number of members of the public. Ms. Reynolds stated Ms. Kempf referred to a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities. There is also a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities that is an information memo titled, “Public Nuisance”. In there it gives the definition between a public nuisance and a private nuisance. These kinds of things where it is in somebody’s backyard becomes a private nuisance. Under the law it requires when it is a private nuisance, because unless that outdoor storage is causing a health issue, safety issues, just because it does not look good does not make it a public nuisance. By taking away the protection of the homeowner to have things stored in their backyard, she sees it as a private issue. Ms. Reynolds stated if they change the language they are going to have wars in neighborhoods. She does not want her neighbor looking over her fence and saying, Pam, I do not like that you have those kid toys out there. It is not their circus, it is not their monkey. It is her yard. She will use it in whatever fashion she deems appropriate for her pleasure. It is hers. It is not yours. Ms. Reynolds stated in this League of Minnesota Cities information memo it says, ordinances may only regulate public nuisance and may not declare something a public nuisance that would be considered a private nuisance, which is relatively harmless or not a nuisance at all. It must be clear as to what constitutes a nuisance. Okay, so outdoor storage is treated as public nuisance. They are saying she can have a boat, a recreational vehicle, whatever. What else can she have or cannot have? Minnesota Statute says she can have anything that has a practical use. Who gets to make the determination? That is one thing about Fridley’s City Code when it comes to outdoor storage, there is no laundry list of what she can and cannot have. She has small grandchildren and she has play equipment and a swimming pool and in the backyard is where it stays. It is there three or four months and when winter comes all of her things – her patio furniture, her garden pots and things – they get stored. She owns a duplex. She does not rent it; she owns it. There is a center fence. Everything gets stacked neatly and covered with a tarp for winter. There is not room in her garage to be moving all of this and putting it away. Ms. Reynolds stated the neighboring properties to her are rental. She does not complain about what they have in their backyard. If they have bags of garbage, rotting leaves, things that could be hazardous to many people, then she has made phone calls and said you need to have somebody come and take care of this. But what she has in her backyard, that is hers. And what her neighbor may consider as useful or have a purpose may not be her same definition of that or yours. Ms. Reynolds stated for example there was a point in time where there was a rental property on Norton Avenue where the lady had rocking chairs and tables and all kinds of things in her front yard that she had flower pots sitting on. Ms. Reynolds called and spoke with Scott Hickok and she asked him about it and asked whether that was a storage issue, and he said, no. What she chooses to use for her landscaping decoration, is what she chooses to use. Ms. Reynolds stated she actually spoke with a young man who told her that he did not like what was going on in his neighbor’s yard so he put up a privacy fence. Her neighbor across the street, after living Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 10 of 14 there for 30 plus years, got tired of the noise and whatnot from the Medtronic parking lot and put up a beautiful wooden privacy fence. Ms. Reynolds stated she has a problem with this stepping over the line between what is a private nuisance and what is a public nuisance and what it is going to cause in neighborhoods. There is no list of things she can have. What about her barbeque grill? She uses it year around. Is that outdoor storage because it is sitting there? According to the new language it would be, because it’s not a boat, a trailer, or a recreational vehicle. Ms. Reynolds stated in this information memo from the League of Minnesota Cities, it spells out that a private nuisance harms few people. As such the responsibility for prevention or abatement is the responsibility of those harmed and is not proper ground for city action. Also in that memo it says cities need to limit their actions to public, not private. She believes when you want permission to start allowing neighbors to complain about what is in her backyard that is stepping over the line. Ms. Reynolds stated there is no clear definition and it’s called out in the League memo, that there has to be a clear definition. From what they are telling her, she does not own a boat, she does not have a recreational vehicle, she does not have any of the three things staff talked about that she can put in her backyard so evidently everything she has in her backyard is outdoor storage because it stays there year around. She does not move it. It is her house. She wants them to consider again, they need to take a look at City Code Section 110.02 because if you change this for 205 they are going to need to change that one, too. She really believes they are going to open a kettle of worms. They already have the ability to get a warrant. Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Kempf if she had any comments to be made about what Ms. Reynolds just spoke to them about? Ms. Kempf replied she would just like to reiterate that there will be a reasonable approach with this. She does not consider the recreational toys to be outdoor storage. As to the lawn furniture, those are items that are used, those are items of recreational activities. Brooklyn Park and the City of Coon Rapids have a similar Code to what Fridley is looking at, and they take the same approach. They really look at what is junk and debris. That is not something they would consider to be outdoor storage. Commissioner Heintz stated he has a problem with that because about four years ago he had a load of landscape mulch in his front yard and he had his wheelbarrow sitting in his backyard. He lives on a corner. He received a Code violation for his wheelbarrow sitting in the backyard. Ms. Kempf might say, oh, that is not going to matter. She leaves the City and the next person comes in and says, oh, that trampoline somebody complained about it, it’s not listed in the code so it must be storage. Staff has to think about that a little bit because this could happen. It happened to him. Somebody else comes in and reads the Code and, if it is not a blade of grass in your backyard, it cannot be there. Commissioner Schwankl stated it looks like they are amending it to say all materials and equipment. Does it make sense to remove or strike “and equipment” and also to add “landscaping” to the list of boats, non-motorized camping trailers, utility trailers, and landscaping? Does it maybe make sense to amend it that way? Ms. Kempf replied, she thinks that would make sense. The problem is when you start adding things and make a laundry list you are always going to leave something out. She understands where Commissioner Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 11 of 14 Heintz is coming from. She thinks the City’s code enforcement process has changed a lot since the two years she has been with the City. They are trying to make things consistent. Problems the City had before with having a summer intern is they had so many different people training them, that there could have been some confusion on stuff like that. Commissioner Heintz asked, what if they put in the code that items in the backyard may include items consistent with current construction projects, current yard remodels and stuff like that. Okay, if a person has a wheelbarrow in the backyard and you can see he is doing work out there, we are not going to send him a letter. Ms. Stromberg stated she would like to just give the commission some history related to code enforcement in Fridley. In 2003 the City laid off its code enforcement person so from 2003 until 2016 the City had multiple planning staff doing code enforcement as much as they could along with their other job. Amy Kempf is new to this position as of two years ago and we could not be happier to have her. Prior to hiring her, the City had summer interns coming in, and we did our best to train them. As to Commissioner Heintz’s situation they have heard complaints related to those types of letters that went out. The intern is learning, we are trying to teach them, and sometimes it did not go the way they wanted it to go. This is meant for that mattress and junk that has been sitting in your neighbor’s backyard that the City has not been able to do anything about. Commissioner Heintz stated he understands that but, okay, the City gets tight on money again and Ms. Kempf leaves and they start using interns again. They are going to run into the same type of problems. There needs to be some language in there that says, if a person is working on their yard, doing some construction in their yards, or redoing landscaping or, improving the look of their property and those materials in the backyard are consistent with that project, then those are acceptable. You do not have to list a wheelbarrow and a rake, etc. It is materials and equipment consistent with improving the property on a current basis. Ms. Stromberg stated and like Ms. Kempf said, coming up with a list, it can be hard because the City is always going to exclude something. Of course barbeque grills are fine, of course the children’s pool and toys are fine, unless they have been sitting there for two years and they are not getting used and they are getting all rusty. The thing about it is you need to be reasonable, and she understands the idea of including more than they probably have here, it is just where do you start and where do you stop. Commissioner Heintz stated they should stipulate materials and equipment consistent with improving the property and then you can include like kids toys, trampolines, etc. Commissioner Schwankl stated for the reasonable useful enjoyment, she would remove the word, “equipment”. Commissioner Heintz stated he disagrees though because if someone has an old tractor that is equipment sitting in a backyard just rotting away, you do not want that there either. Commissioner Schwankl stated but there are ways to address hazardous materials and equipment elsewhere in the Code. She agrees with Commissioner Heintz, use words like reasonable, etc. just to help avoid future people from mediating where they probably do not need to be involved. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 12 of 14 Ms. Reynolds stated this change has to do with residential properties and she noticed it covers all classifications. When it comes to commercial properties, they are required to screen their outdoor storage. In her opinion, her house screens her outdoor storage. The only people who are looking at what is in her backyard is the apartment building behind her and, if they have an issue, they can yell over the fence and say, Pam, put that crap away and she will gladly do it. This is going to cause more problems that it is worth to change it, because there is an avenue for code enforcement without pitting neighbor against neighbor. Ms. Reynolds stated the rental properties should be covered because State Statutes says it is the owner’s responsibility to maintain it. If you have junk laying all over a rental property, if the neighbors complain, that is as easy as notifying the owner. As to an old tractor in the yard, what if she has an old tractor and she has it displayed with begonias or something. That is part of her landscape plan. She has seen people with toilets in their front yard with petunias growing out of them. That is part of their landscape. Joanne Zmuda , 6051 Fourth Street NE, stated she lives behind the Cielo building. Across the street from her there is a house that was re-sided maybe three or four years ago. They have a pile of junk on the side of the garage which is visible from the street. She can sit and watch TV and see this pile of junk. It does not bother her, it is not in her yard, she sees it, and she does not care. When you have neighbors spying on neighbors, and the City coming in to check your yard is carrying it just a bit too far. They all have to live here. Let’s try and get along and solve our own problems and not get the City involved unless you absolutely have to and then you can go to court. She does not see the way it is now to be a problem. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:03 P.M. Commissioner Oquist stated he heard the comments, private vs. whatever, but also to him you have to remember you are living in a neighborhood, a community, that is trying to look presentable. In Commissioner Heintz’s case that was ridiculous to get a citation for the wheelbarrow in the backyard. On the other hand, they have to clean things up. For example, where he lives the neighbor next door has to look at the people’s bath tub which has been sitting in the backyard for about two years that they took out of the house. Haul it away and get rid of it. It is a community. It is a neighborhood and you have to be able to address that. Somebody might say this is my property, but your neighbors have to look at that as well. They have to have some way to police that if you will. He does not like the word “police” but he could not think of anything else. Commissioner Heintz stated he gets what is happening. He understands that and agrees in principle with it. However, they need a little bit more clarification and direction. You cannot just say, you cannot have anything in your backyard but stacked wood. If you go by that, anybody who has a trampoline in their backyard is in violation. You are saying the only thing you can have is wood or the vehicles. That has to eliminate anything else in the backyard, such as swing sets. Common sense tells you that is not junk but you are not allowing for that. If somebody comes along and they are a stickler by the word, they can say, you know you have to remove that. You cannot have that in the backyard. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Schwankl stated she tends to agree. Things like landscaping or reasonable recreational items should be basically approved in this language. The way it is it leaves it in the hands of an individual who may be a little bit too much of a stickler. Chairperson Kondrick stated so they are saying this is a good idea if they were more specific, if they line itemed things. Commissioner Schwankl replied, no, if they just made it reasonable. Chairperson Kondrick stated but how do you get away from it, that is his point. Commissioner Oquist stated the only way you can do it is you have to line item things. Say, this this is acceptable, this is not. There is always going to be a gray area. Commissioner Heintz stated if you say items included are stacked wood. You could say any items in a current landscaping plan, current improvement projects. If you say it is materials and equipment for a current yard or home improvements that covers a lot of stuff and it does not cover junk. Commissioner Oquist stated, yes, it does cover junk. Commissioner Heintz stated but it is a current improvement project. Chairperson Kondrick stated that part is okay but this lady talked about someone having a bunch of siding alongside their house for the past few years and she does not mind it, but someone else may. He is against anything that is going to make the City of Fridley look like a junk yard, like people do not care. That is where she is wrong. In any event what are they going to do with this? Does staff want the Commission to take action on it? Ms. Stromberg replied, that would be up to the Commission. If they would like, staff could work on modifying the language, talk to the City Attorney, and come back to them with new language. Chairperson Kondrick replied, that would be wise because she does have some valid questions. He knows the intent is there. It is very, very good and necessary. Commissioner Heintz stated they all agree on that. Commissioner Oquist stated they have heard the comments and if they can put that together in such a way that Commissioner Heintz is talking about. It has to have some kind of common sense and cannot be just item by item. Commissioner Schwankl stated they should use a word like “reasonable” just to allow a little wiggle room, a little breathing room. Also, just to make sure that all the hard surface is for front yard. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether they are in agreement? Ms. Stromberg stated she would recommend there be a motion to table. Chairperson Kondrick stated he think Ms. Stromberg’s idea is sound. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 14 of 14 MOTION by Commissioner Heintz to table to the next meeting the Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #18-02, by the City of Fridley, to allow the code on Exterior Storage to be applied to an entire property and not just what is seen from the public right-of-way to the next Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS: 1. Receive the minutes of the May 7, 2018, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Stromberg stated as to an item from the last meeting, the plat on Lucia Lane, making three lots from one lot, that was approved by the City Council; and the final plat was also approved by the Council since the Planning Commission met last. Also there was a special use permit for a lot coverage increase at Ashley Furniture, and that was approved. The City issued a building permit so they should be seeing an addition onto that building very soon. Ms. Stromberg stated at the next meeting on September 19. ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary