Loading...
PLM 05/15/2019 FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019 7:00 P.M. FRIDLEY CIVIC CAMPUS, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7071 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Rachel Schwankl, Leroy Oquist, Terry McClellan, David Kondrick, Mike Heintz, and Brad Sielaff ABSENT: Mark Hansen OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Jones, Planning Manager; and Dan Cahill, Neighborhood Preservation Specialist APPROVE MINUTES April 17, 2019 Motion by Commissioner Oquist to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #19-01, by the City of Fridley, to consider amendments to the R-1, One-Family Dwelling, R-2, Two Family Dwelling, and S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood Zoning Districts to require tree planting on newly constructed parcels and to reorganize and clarify existing code language to be easier for the public to understand. 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 HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Julie Jones, Planning Manager, stated the real purpose that triggered this text amendment is the tree planting piece of it. When staff was working on the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, one of the actions steps of that plan, was to look at tree planting. As they know they will be losing more trees to Emerald Ash Borer, which was officially found in Fridley last week, and which they knew was coming. There are very stringent Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЋƚŅЋЌ landscaping requirements in all of the zoning districts except in the residential single- family districts. Staff wanted to put that requirement in Code just to try and get more trees out there and some diversity of trees as well. Ms. Jones stated when they do things like that in a text amendment, staff likes to look at the entire chapter and make sure everything is in good shape and it was not. That is why staff included the entire chapter of all of these three sections for review, because there is something on almost every page staff is tweaking a little bit just to make it more understandable. Ms. Jones stated really nothing else here in the Code proposal is new, but they are rewording and reorganizing things to make them more understandable. The City Code is mostly read by people on-line now, so it is really important to make it easy for people to understand. Ms. Jones stated another component being restructured is the parking requirements in place for what is named ÑchurchesÒ in the Code. Staff is now changing that term to Ñplaces of worshipÒ or ÑassemblyÒ uses. The City Attorney advised them to organize that to lump a lot of those uses together rather than singling out the uses as separate and making those requirements more uniform in the Code. Ms. Jones stated staff also wanted to add some more graphics to help explain some confusing parts they get questions on as people look at it on-line. Ms. Jones stated there are a lot of things they are doing as policy but are not written in the Code. Staff wanted to put that in the Code, so people do not have to call and find out answers to some of these questions. Also, they wanted to clarify some confusing language. Some of it goes back to the 1960Ôs and 1970Ôs and terms have changed since then. Ms. Jones stated this affects three sections of the Code, the R-1 single-family residential, the R-2 single-family residential, and the S-1 Hyde Park Neighborhood. Hyde Park has its own zoning district just because lot sizes tend to be smaller in that neighborhood and so there are different setback requirements in that neighborhood. Ms. Jones stated she is going to go through these changes page by page. Once they get past the first section it is pretty much the same language thereafter so she does not have to repeat herself. That is why she numbered the pages in their packet for the first text amendment so they can refer to pages in case the Commission has questions about certain sections. Ms. Jones stated starting at the beginning on page 1, one thing staff is adding in as new language but it is really not new, is this language about only one principal building being Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЌƚŅЋЌ allowed per lot which is in the beginning of the Zoning Code. However, that section of the Code is supposed to be for things that apply for all zoning districts, not just the R-1. They wanted to put language in the R-1 as they do not want to have people needing to jump around to different sections of the Code to find out what is allowed and not allowed in a particular zoning district. Ms. Jones stated also on that first page staff is just clarifying how they interpret this requirement for the limitation of accessory buildings. Staff gets a lot of calls about this and wanted to make the Ñwhichever is smallerÒ requirement clear. Ms. Jones stated in the line just below that, also on page 1, there was a change in the State Building Code a few years back about building permits being required for certain size accessory buildings. That changed from 120 to 200 square feet. They wanted to change that in the Zoning Code to match that State Building Code language. Ms. Jones stated also on page 1 at the very bottom, staff wanted to make it very clear, because they have had some Code enforcement issues with this, that your garage or accessory building can be used as a man cave if you want to convert it to some living space; but you cannot create it as a dwelling where it can be a complete separate dwelling. Commissioner Heintz asked Ms. Jones whether she is talking about a detached garage? Ms. Jones replied, detached or attached is really considered an accessory structure. Ms. Jones stated going onto page 2 of the text amendment, sometime ago, the CityÔs legal counsel had advised they could better describe recreational facilities, so that is just some additional language to clarify what that includes in the Code. Also, on page 2, when staff is referring to a chapter, that means a chapter in the Zoning Code, so they wanted to change that term to ÑsectionÒ because 506 is not in the Zoning Code. It is in a separate section of City Code. Ms. Jones stated on page 4 they wanted to add in the term, ÑFire CodeÒ there because that references farmers markets which are usually involving tents. The requirements for tents are in the Fire Code. Ms. Jones stated on page 5, it looks like a lot of change but they are just really unifying the existing language and condensing the churches or places of assembly together with private schools, daycare centers, and having the same parking requirements for all of those in one section. Ms. Jones stated staff also wanted to clarify the proof of parking requirement, which is in the middle of page 5. If the commissioners have been on the Commission a long Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЍƚŅЋЌ time, they have probably experienced staff making a suggestion for a development project site to, if they could not or did not want to meet their parking requirements that were in Code for some reason, ensure they have enough space on the site to add additional parking in the future if it were needed. Staff calls that Ñproof of parkingÒ, and staff wanted to clarify the code language on how that works. Ms. Jones stated on page 6, the criteria for an accessory parking lot setback in the Code was set up to be at the same setback as a building for a new home. That used to be 35 feet and then was changed a number of years ago to 25 feet. However, parking lot setbacks are typically 20 feet in the Code. Staff is recommending changing that setback from 35 feet to 20 feet. Ms. Jones stated also on that page they are looking at removing the special use permit option for exterior storage. The City has never granted an exterior storage special use permit in the R-1 zoning district, and staff does not anticipate the City Council ever wanting to grant one so they decided to just take that out of the Code. That appears again at the end. It is repeated again on one of the last pages of this chapter of the Zoning Code. Ms. Jones stated on page 8 they added in a graphic to help better explain a setback requirement. Ms. Jones stated on page 9 they wanted to better word the accessory structure setback requirement here and point out it does not only apply to a garage or a shed, but also applies to a swimming pool or gazebo or some other structure you might be putting in your yard. You would want that setback at minimum 3 feet from the property line. Commissioner Heintz asked but what if they have a street in the front and the back? Ms. Jones replied, then that is a double frontage situation and would fall under the following paragraph. They would have to meet the street setback requirements. Ms. Jones stated on pages 10-12, staff got to the end of looking at this and went through the parking requirements and were kind of embarrassed at how jumbled this was. They repeat parking requirements in two different sections towards the end of this zoning section and wanted to better organize this. Again, they are not changing any of the language; they are just reorganizing it to put it in one defined area. Ms. Jones stated the one thing they are adding in, on page 11, along with the graphic they see there, this has always been policy for a number of years Ï that maximum driveway width is 26 feet. It has always been confusing at what point of the driveway do you take that measurement. Staff created a diagram to show it is at the property line where they measure that. Staff receives a lot of calls on that. That has become a very Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЎƚŅЋЌ important issue just because of storm water runoff, to minimize the amount of storm water runoff. A lot of properties have extremely wide driveways which are really frowned upon now as they are trying to reduce the amount of water runoff coming off of the property onto the street. Ms. Jones stated again staff is recommending removing the special use permit option for exterior storage on page 12. Ms. Jones stated page 13 is where the new tree planting requirement is located. Staff has refined that language, so she hopes it is clear the way they worded it. This is just for new construction. They are talking about a minimum of 2 trees being planted of at least 2 different species. The size requirements are right in line with other Code sections as far as what the City requires for size and also allowing the substitution of ornamental trees, so that you need to plant 2 ornamental trees to replace one of those trees required. Commissioner Sielaff asked, how do you measure the diameter? Where do you measure the diameter? Ms. Jones replied as to the caliper she understands that is the diameter of the tree trunk. Commissioner Sielaff stated the standard is usually at breast height. Is that what this is? Ms. Jones replied, yes. Commissioner McClellan asked, back to page 12, the exterior storage, just for clarity by definition, when it says, required front yard. By the City of FridleyÔs definition, what is the front yard? Ms. Jones replied, the front yard is your narrowest lot width on a corner lot. The front yard is from the building edge that is closest to the street, whether it be your house or your garage. That plane forward to the street is considered your front yard. Commissioner McClellan asked is that defined somewhere in Code? Ms. Jones replied, yes, in the beginning of the Zoning Code. Ms. Jones stated Dan Cahill is here with her, because he is the CityÔs Neighborhood Preservation Specialist who started with the City in January. In his work so far, he has found the CityÔs maintenance requirements could use a little tweaking. He looked at other city codes and found some improved language. That is why they added just a couple of words on page 13. They encounter a lot of old metal sheds that are very Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЏƚŅЋЌ rusted and so added the word ÑrustedÒ. They run into properties that have holes in the siding, and staff wanted to quantify how bad does it have to be before that is a violation. Also, staff runs into some issues as to stairways and decks. It becomes difficult determining how bad does it have to be before it is really considered unsafe and staff has to deal with it as a maintenance issue. They wanted to clarify that language in all three of these sections of the Zoning Code that they are included in the proposed text amendment. Ms. Jones stated the second section of the text amendment, starting at the bottom of page 14, is addressing the R-2 two-family section of Code. That Code language is all the same as the R-1. The only thing that is different in this section is when they get to that maximum driveway width allowance because on duplexes you can often have two separate driveways, so staff needed to word that a little bit differently. They are using the maximum that is allowed for commercial/industrial properties, 32-feet width. If you have two driveways, you can have two 16-foot wide driveways and still meet that maximum. Again this is in new construction or if somebody is putting in a new driveway. Then, they would need to follow these guidelines. Commissioner McClellan stated for clarity, if you are putting in a new paved hard surface, then it would have to be according to the revised Code. Ms. Jones replied, right, and the tricky thing is the City does not require permits for driveways. Although a new driveway would require a right-of-way permit for the new curb cut in the public right-of-way. People are often doing their due diligence in calling staff, so staff wants to put a graphic in to help explain that in the Code. Ms. Jones stated the next section of the text amendment is the S-2 section, which starts on page 26, and that language is a little bit different because Hyde Park has different setbacks and is organized a little bit different than the other residential sections. All the changes staff is proposing are the same in regards to parking or storage or the maintenance requirements or tree planting requirements. They use the same language in this section so she will not repeat all of those things she just went through. Ms. Jones stated staffÔs recommendation tonight for this text amendment is to hold this public hearing and review the text. This is staffÔs chance to get the CommissionÔs input to see if they missed anything or if they see anything staff can word better to make it more understandable before staff asks them to make a recommendation on the text amendments to the City Council. Commissioner Heintz asked as to the Hyde Park section, Principal Uses, on page 27, Ñall drive and parking areas to be hard surfacedÒ is crossed out. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻАƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones replied she meant to note that. They are not eliminating that. It is just unnecessarily repeated in the Code. It was stated in this location and again in the parking and driveway section. Staff does not like Codes to repeat because then in the future they might change one section and forget it is in the other. Commissioner McClellan asked where is it located? Ms. Jones replied, on page 32. Commissioner Heintz stated staff should draw more pictures. Ms. Jones replied, actually a lot of other citiesÔ zoning codes do have a lot more pictures in them. Commissioner McClellan stated he did some research as far as storage and setbacks and what is defined as front and side. Arden Hills had really one page of verbiage and half a page of a picture. It spelled it out quite clearly. Ms. Jones stated the City actually has a lot of questions about that. It would be a good graphic for them. Commissioner McClellan stated he kept a copy and would be happy to share it. Commissioner Schwankl stated in all three sections they talk about a private garage not exceeding the first floor area or 1,000 square feet. Staff wants to add whichever is smaller. Is there a reason they want to limit it? Ms. Jones replied, that is how they have always interpreted it. The City Attorney noticed that you should always state that clearly and suggested staff add that clause in there. Commissioner Schwankl stated she was not sure that limitation was necessary other than if there is a logical reason to limit it or make it the smaller of, rather than say the larger of. Commissioner McClellan stated some people might be grandfathered into smaller stuff. Does that mean it is still okay? Commissioner Schwankl stated she is trying to determine why the City is limiting garage sizes. Commissioner Oquist stated they do not want huge garages. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻБƚŅЋЌ Commissioner Heintz stated the City does not want the garage to be larger than the house. Commissioner Schwankl asked if they knew why? Commissioner Heintz replied, because then it becomes the principal building. Ms. Jones stated it is really about what is the principal structure. Commissioner Schwankl stated that was her other question is the push now is to allow people to build a smaller homes that their parents can live in when they are older so you have two homes or to take what were single-family lots in Minneapolis and allow them to be up to a tri-plex. The City is kind of clearly drawing a line in the sand that does not benefit the City. She just wanted to say that. Commissioner Heintz stated it is either the size of your first floor or up to 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Schwankl stated the smaller of. Commissioner Heintz replied, yes. However, if you have a small house you are probably going to have a single-car garage anyways. On a small lot. Commissioner Schwankl replied, maybe. If you have a larger lot, like some people she knows, and you want to have your parents come live with you when they are older and put up a small house for them, it is becoming sort of the hip thing to do. Commissioner Heintz replied but that is a house structure added on. Commissioner Schwankl stated which you also cannot do under this. Commissioner Heintz replied you can add a house structure. Commissioner McClellan replied, not if it is in R-1. Commissioner Heintz replied if it is connected you could. If it is an add-on. Ms. Jones stated, yes, and they have seen people do that where they add onto the existing house structure. Commissioner Schwankl stated if it is an addition. Not if it is separate, such as tiny homes. She thinks that is short-sighted. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻВƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones stated that is something staff spent a great deal of time debating. About a year or so ago, the State Legislature actually forced citiesÔ hand and forced that code change on them. Only gave them a few weeks to respond and, if they did not respond, it became law. The City had debated about whether they would adopt that section or not. The City chose to opt out, because it was really geared towards a very narrow scenario. They were calling it home healthcare facilities. It was very poorly written. In their opinion it did not do justice in helping that family member you wanted to provide a living quarters for. The City opted out of that change but left the door open to discuss that at a later time as to what would be an appropriate way to put that into Code. Ms. Jones stated if that is something the Commission feels strongly about and would like to have discussion regarding it, staff would certainly be open to that. It would probably be a good work session item, to have either a joint meeting with the City Council or something like that. The Councilmembers have had an opportunity to discuss it. The reason why staff is standing by this language at this point (and Mr. Cahill can give them many stories in just his short time that he has been here) is creating that second living structure on a property works out fine oftentimes when they are initially built for that situation; however, when that property gets sold years later and changes hands, that unit in the back becomes a rental property and oftentimes a problem because the City is not even aware it exists. They have had some really serious code enforcement situations involving all sorts of illegal activity in those situations, because they are so under the radar that people do not even know they are there. They have some strong opinions about why those second dwellings can end up being a big burden in the City. Commissioner Heintz stated he had one in his neighborhood. They added onto the garage and created a small dwelling in there. New people moved in and they were doing all kinds of things out of that garage. Commissioner McClellan stated it would need to be a rather lengthy discussion because if you are talking about rewriting what the definition of what an R-1 code might be, that is not a simple discussion or to rezone it as an R-2 and then you have that discussion. That might be so, but in any case, not to be afraid of the discussion, but make no mistake it is a big deal. Commissioner Schwankl stated she agreed. It is just with the addition of the words, only one principal building shall be located, single-family only, in R-1 and S-1. It seems aggressive in the face of affordable housing and multi-generational living, and density and things the Met Council would love to see. Things that Minneapolis is doing. Commissioner Heintz asked, but they do not want somebody to come in and put a glorified travel trailer on their lot and use that as a dwelling, correct? Ms. Jones replied, that was what the State proposal was, yes. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЉƚŅЋЌ Commissioner McClellan stated it is clearly stated you cannot live in there. It would be a rather long conversation by definition. Ms. Jones stated if it is something the Commission wants to address let her know and she can discuss it with the City Manager. Chairperson Kondrick stated the City Council will have heard comments made by this Commission and the thoughts they had about that and why they think it is a good or not good idea and they can take a look at that to see if it has any merit. They can decide for themselves. Commissioner Heintz stated he happened to have read something about one and one- half weeksÔ ago. They are actually looking at maybe looking to zone less parking spots per building because of the millenials with their Uber and Lyft, etc. Not as many cars in the next ten years will be using parking spots. Ms. Jones replied, that is actually something staff has talked about quite a bit when they were looking at that section. Mostly because of the prediction of autonomous vehicles and people subscribing to autonomous vehicle services, where you may not even have a car to store at home anymore. Staff felt that is a section that they will very likely be visiting in the near future. For now, they actually run into more problems with people not having enough paved surface for the vehicles they have. That is something Mr. Cahill writes up all the time - parking off the pavement. Ms. Jones stated also in that section they talk about the clause regarding other surfaces approved by the City. They debated changing the language to include some of these newer technologies they see happening in certain scenarios for overflow parking such as grass pavers, where there is a metal grid system but grass grows through it, to stabilize the soil. They had that put in at one of the fire stations. Ms. Jones as to impervious pavement they have had some developments recently put that in. The CityÔs encouraging those sorts of things as they want to see less impervious surface. However, they did not want to start listing those things in Code because new technologies are coming out all the time and did not want to be changing the Code language in a year or so just for that. It is certainly something staff is promoting and hoping to see more of in the near future. Commissioner Schwankl stated she is wondering about the minimal floor area. It looks like it gets 1,020 square feet kind of throughout R-1 and R-2. Ms. Jones replied that is something that has been in Code forever so they have never even talked about that with this text amendment. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЊƚŅЋЌ Commissioner Schwankl stated as homes are potentially becoming smaller perhaps that should be brought into this century or at least not so restrictive that way. Ms. Jones replied likely it will come up in redevelopment projects which are almost always rezoned to S-2 and gives them the flexibility to change those requirements. She does not see Fridley having a big massive new single-family home development happening because the City is fully developed. Most of the redevelopment changes they are seeing are in the multi-family zoning areas. Commissioner McClellan stated if he were up to speed, as to the Pulte Homes that were just built south of them, those are relatively small lots. He asked if that was zoned S-2? Ms. Jones replied, yes. Commissioner McClellan stated so there could have been some discussion about building size on those particular lots had it been of interest at the time. Ms. Jones replied, it was discussed as part of the process there, yes. The setbacks are less there than Code would normally allow. Commissioner Schwankl stated the 1,020 square feet of living area and the requirement that it be a double garage, under the garage requirements, again she just does not know why they would place restrictions without a great reason. Ms. Jones replied, the reason is because of the code enforcement problems the City has. She does not have the exact statistics in front of her but parking off the pavement is in their top 10 of the CityÔs code enforcement problems - probably in the CityÔs top 5. They are talking maybe as many as 100 cases a year they are addressing that violation. Why that is a big issue is because of soil erosion and the soil then getting into the storm water system. The CityÔs biggest problem right now is people having way too many cars for what garage or paved space they have. Still the City is a long ways from that scenario where people are using Uber. Even in the recent Cielo apartment development, their plan was modified to add more parking. They are finding that people have way more than one car per person it seems. She knows that is the trend but Fridley is not there at all. Commissioner Heintz stated at one point both he and his wife each had a car plus each of their three kids and his boat was in the garage. They had trouble finding spots in the driveway parking their cars. Also, his neighbor got a ticket a couple of times because he parked on the river rock next to his driveway. They have to limit it somehow. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЋƚŅЋЌ Commissioner Schwankl stated so they are limiting garage size. They are telling people they cannot have a large garage to store their classic vehicle, etc. However, on the other hand the City is saying you have to build a two-stall or larger garage. Commissioner Heintz replied, depending on the lot size. If it is under 9,000 if can be a single. Commissioner Schwankl stated, yes. She just thinks that is interesting. Commissioner Heintz stated if they leave it open, what if he builds a pole barn on his yard and calls it a garage. Commissioner Schwankl replied, sure, as long as it meets the setback. Commissioner Heintz stated his neighbors would not appreciate it. Commissioner Schwankl stated more than they would seeing cars parked on your grass. Commissioner Schwankl stated the only other thing she really liked was the exterior storage under the S-1 section on page 32. The other exterior storage is all prohibited. All of the exterior storage was basically cut out, including permitted uses which she understands they never permitted exterior storage thus far; but she really liked the exterior storage language that is in S-1 starting on page 32. She is wondering if that could be replicated in R-1 and R-2. Ms. Jones replied, it is. That is a recent text amendment the City did last year. Commissioner Schwankl stated on page 12, Exterior Storage, what is going to be Section (c), that language she does not think really matches what is on page 32 for Exterior Storage. Ms. Jones replied, she does not think that has been updated. It is supposed to be the same language. Commissioner Schwankl stated on page 23 it is correct. Chairperson Kondrick asked Ms. Jones whether staff can change that. Ms. Jones replied, yes, they will get that corrected before it goes to Council. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЌƚŅЋЌ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he likes this text amendment and believes staff did a good job. He has no problem with this. MOTION by Commissioner Heintz approving Text Amendment, TA #19-01, by the City of Fridley, to consider amendments to the R-1, One-Family Dwelling, R-2, Two Family Dwelling, and S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood Zoning Districts to require tree planting on newly constructed parcels and to reorganize and clarify existing code language to be easier for the public to understand (with the correction as to Exterior Storage on page 12). Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #19-02, by the City of Fridley, to amend Section 128 of the City Code to more clearly define what types of public nuisances will be abated and the process for abatement. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:48 P.M. Ms. Jones stated this is a text amendment staff was working on long before Mr. Cahill started working for the City of Fridley. It was at least a couple of years ago and there have been a lot of pieces to put together. It is impacting Chapter 128, which is the Nuisance Abatement chapter. The City does do nuisance abatements a lot. Mr. Cahill will probably do over a hundred this year. Ms. Jones stated the purpose of this amendment really was mostly triggered by the fact that a number of years ago they changed language in Chapter 6 of City Code to get away from hiring a hearing examiner when people want to appeal their code enforcement case, and instead use the Appeals Commission for that process. That has been working quite well for the City for a number of years. Therefore, they would like to modify the language that is in Chapter 128 because they left some of that hearing examiner language in there as they were not sure how that was going to work out. Ms. Jones stated they also want to better define the public nuisance definition. Again, upon the advice of the City Attorney, they have had some interesting cases, and that Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЍƚŅЋЌ language has not been updated for decades. There are some terms that can be better stated. Also, just to make the definition a little less broad to cover all the things the City abates. Ms. Jones stated another thing is they need to modify the timelines a little bit. The Code gives the person who is appealing 20 days to respond to a letter. The 20 days is st the deadline and then on the 21 day the City goes in and abates, so it does not give staff much time to react. The City Attorney felt that 10 days was a reasonable enough time to allow people to appeal. That gives staff more time to set up the hearing, etc. and try to process that appeal as timely as possible. Ms. Jones stated staff also wanted to clarify the disposition and release of property. The City certainly has policy that staff uniformly follows for that, but it is not real clearly stated in the Code. Ms. Jones stated they want to better describe the assessment process. That is, when someone has an abatement and does not pay their bill within the 30 days. The City pays the bill and then it gets assessed onto the property taxes. They just wanted to clarify those payment options and make sure everything is matching State Statute language on that. Ms. Jones stated there is really nothing here changing the CityÔs process. They are just better defining what they are doing in this language. That is very important because in every abatement letter Mr. Cahill sends out, he sends out a copy of Chapter 128 with it. They want to make sure people understand that language when they get it in the mail. Ms. Jones stated there are several other chapters within City Code that refer to Chapter 128 and they want to unify all that language. It is very important to the CityÔs finance department they are following the same timelines, the same process, percentage of payments and staff fees. As she previously stated that language is sent to the person who is getting an abatement letter, staff wants to make sure that Code language is very understandable, and the code language matches the process the City is following. Ms. Jones stated she is not going into detail on all the changes here because really they are not changing in essence anything they are doing here. As in the previous hearing, they are holding the public hearing on this tonight for an opportunity for the Commission to review the text and provide suggestions and make recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Oquist stated under Hearing, the paragraph states the hearing shall be conducted no more than Ñthirty (360) daysÒ. Is it 30 days or 60 days? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЎƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones stated she believed it was supposed to be 60. They are trying to follow 60- day action law on this and make sure they are processing within 60 days. It used to be that the Appeals Commission met more often than they do now so that is why these timelines have been changed so they do not have to call a special meeting. Commissioner Sielaff asked as to the 10 days do they have to just request it or do they have to provide a basis for requesting it, etc.? Ms. Jones replied, they really do not have to give a reason. They just need to submit something in writing to let the Community Development Director know they would like to appeal. Commissioner Heintz stated 128.07 is followed by what should be numbered 128.08. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:56 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated the changes are fine with the corrections. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Text Amendment, TA #19-02, by the City of Fridley, to amend Section 128 of the City Code to more clearly define what types of public nuisances will be abated and the process for abatement, with the two corrections. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of a Text Amendment, TA #19-03, by the City of Fridley, to amend Section 110 of the City Code for the purpose of clarifying the definitions and procedures for exterior nuisance abatements. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:58 P.M. Ms. Jones stated the primary reason for this amendment is to make sure they are using the same language referring to Chapter 128 when dealing with assessments. They also wanted to better define the exterior nuisance conditions that are listed. The language in Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊЏƚŅЋЌ the City Code is word for word from State Statute. Some of the terms, again, are a little outdated. There are a lot of references to machinery which she is sure is related to farm machinery. The City does more abatements related to exterior waste and a lot of junk vehicle removal, so they are changing the language a little to take out terms, such as vermin, and be a little more broad about the term, domestic animals. Ms. Jones stated for many years now, staff has been doing what they call, 24-hour abatements. The situation may be where it is a rental property, the tenants moved out in a rush, left all of their Ñraw garbageÒ containing food waste that smells and is attracting rodents, flies, and maggots. Staff cannot allow the CityÔs normal 20-day process for removal, because it is creating a health hazard and attracting raccoons, etc. Ms. Jones stated they have had this process in place for what they have been calling 24- hour abatements. They post a letter on the property and send the homeowner a letter. Staff knows they are not going to receive that letter in the mail within 24 hours so they have to post it and go in and remove that waste. Staff wanted to put that whole process in that they have been following in the code. It has been working very well for the City, and it keeps the neighborhood happy. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether staff runs the risk of someone complaining about the lack of time they felt was necessary? Ms. Jones replied, it is never fast enough for people who are complaining; but staff does the best they can within the confines of the law. Chairperson Kondrick stated but that is the law that the City can get by with a shorter time limit, correct? Ms. Jones replied, well, they have, but the City Code should clearly state the process the City follows. Staff has been doing it under the auspices that it is a health hazard and that the City has the authority to get a health hazard removed right away. However, the CityÔs standard process is to allow 20 days when they send an abatement letter out. Ms. Jones stated also they want to make sure they are referring to that same assessment language in Chapter 128 in the different Code sections. Besides amendment to Chapter 110 in this text amendment it is also proposing an amendment to Chapter 105 and Chapter 210. Ms. Jones stated in these proposed Code changes they are referring to some definitions in Chapter 205 which is the beginning of the Zoning Code. They did not want to repeat all those terms and lengthen this section even longer. She also wanted to clarify the public nuisance definition and put in some exemption language for special use permits. Of course the City is not going to go in and abate the material that is stored outside on Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊАƚŅЋЌ commercial/industrial properties as long as they are meeting the stipulations of their special use permit. Ms. Jones stated they also wanted to clarify the abatement procedures - the timelines and fees they are following in Chapter 128. The problem they have right now is that language is worded slightly different in multiple chapters, and they really just wanted to keep that language the same everywhere to avoid any confusion. Ms. Jones stated they wanted to clarify that notices are always given to the owner of a property. They do try to notify tenants in tenant situations, and they are not required to by law. They are also doing those notices by U.S. Mail. Commissioner Heintz asked whether those are done by Certified Mail? Ms. Jones replied, no. StaffÔs experience is that people do not pick up their certified mail, so they do not typically do that. In some situations they have. The State Statute does not require the City to use certified mail. Ms. Jones stated they are adding in language about public right-of-way abatements. The Public Works wanted that. It is rare that happens but they wanted to follow the same procedures that are in Chapter 128 for those instances. That is part of the public nuisance section. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether the City has a lot of it? Ms. Jones replied, no. They have had code enforcement cases primarily handled by the Engineering or Public Works staff. The City has had some instances where people will dump a load of rock or dirt in the street for their landscaping project and have not gotten proper permits to do that, and it is creating an unsafe situation in the dark. Ms. Jones stated and then they are adding in that 24-hour abatement. They are calling it emergency abatement procedures and adding in that language into the Code so it is clear what process they follow for that. Commissioner McClellan stated he was struggling with that. He could not find the 24- hour. Ms. Jones replied, they are calling it emergency. Commissioner McClellan stated so it could be 18 hours. Ms. Jones replied, no, they always give them at least 24 hours. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊБƚŅЋЌ Commissioner McClellan stated which becomes a policy issue. Is it clearly stated what that timeline is? Ms. Jones replied, it is in the CityÔs form letter that has been established. Commissioner Heintz stated but it is not in here. Commissioner McClellan stated he is not advocating more time. He is just saying, emergency for one is not necessarily an emergency to all. If he is the neighbor, and having experienced it, 2 days is too long. Ms. Jones replied, the emergency situations she has run into is the person who puts the refrigerator out in the yard or at the curb and does not have the door taken off or secured so a child cannot get in it. Those are ones where staff has actually acted faster than 24 hours if they can. Commissioner McClellan stated clarity might be useful. Commissioner Oquist stated they have to define what that emergency abatement is. Commissioner McClellan stated it might give Mr. Cahill some leverage, too. So he can say, this is what it is. It could be the CityÔs policy, but that may not be in the Code. Commissioner Heintz stated they could even say, within 24 hours. Commissioner McClellan stated he is just saying tighten it up to be more specific. Commissioner Oquist stated, yes, 24 hours or less. Chairperson Kondrick asked, can staff change that? Ms. Jones replied, oftentimes in Code they will write things purposely broad. It gives staff some opportunity to address every situation that comes up without having to change the Code. Commissioner McClellan stated he leaves it to the enforcement fellow who has to make those calls. He is not advocating giving anybody much space. Commissioner Sielaff asked Ms. Jones whether they can do up to 24 hours? That gives them discretion. Ms. Jones replied, but the timeline is something they can think about and talk about, the 24 hours part of it. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЊВƚŅЋЌ Commissioner Heintz stated with the 24 hours, that tells them they have up to 24 hours but it could be even quicker. Ms. Jones replied, yes, she likes that. Staff will take a look at that. Chairperson Kondrick stated that is a valid point. It protects Mr. Cahill and it protects the City. Ms. Jones replied, the standard letter they send out as prepared for these gives them 24 hours from the time they send the letter. Commissioner Oquist stated it could be different for another person. Commissioner McClellan stated the refrigerator would be an easy call. However, if you get a bunch of furnishings that can be the home of the next vermin. Sometimes they can set up shop in a day and now you have other issues just not as clear as a refrigerator door. Ms. Jones stated to meet these criteria for public health, it has to be a public health problem, a safety problem, or public welfare problem. That is the criteria. Furniture sitting at a curb is not going to qualify for that. To be a health problem it needs to be raw garbage that can easily be ripped into by an animal. Raw garbage at the curb and a refrigerator are what they have done as an emergency abatement. She cannot think of anything else the City has done. They are very careful that it meets that criteria to be a public safety problem. Commissioner McClellan stated when does it become litter and trash that someone left at the curb? Ms. Jones replied, litter is different. Paper floating around the street is not going to harm anybody healthwise. Commissioner Oquist stated he has a little problem with non-domestic animals. Are chickens non-domestic animals? Ms. Jones replied, no, not in her opinion. They are defined as livestock in the City Code. Commissioner Oquist stated in some ways that almost has to be defined what a non- domestic animal is. Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЋЉƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones replied, it is defined in Chapter 101, the CityÔs animal control ordinance. That term was a suggestion by the City Attorney so she is trusting the attorney researched that a bit, but staff can doublecheck on that. Commissioner Schwankl referred to section 110.03, paragraph 5, stores items outdoors, excluding special use permitted outdoor storage. Ms. Jones stated there are two sections labeled 110.03, so staff needs to fix that. Commissioner Schwankl stated she is wondering whether they should be reflecting at all on the exterior storage that is approved which is more for single-family, but stores items outdoors really is not a public nuisance necessarily, right? Ms. Jones replied, it depends on what it is. Commissioner Schwankl stated, including but not limited to? Ms. Jones replied, it depends. The most recent Code change is the language referred to earlier in the previous text amendment and is defining that the only things allowed to be stored outside are lawn furniture, neatly stacked firewood, and recreational equipment. Anything else is considered a code violation. It may not be a public nuisance, but it is an exterior storage violation. Commissioner Schwankl stated, so it allows for items outside a building according to the stipulations of an approved special use permit, or not a public nuisance. What about items stored outside a building according to City and Zoning Code are not a public nuisance. Is that pretty fair to at least be clear about that? Only so there is no confusion. Ms. Jones replied, addressing that is the intent of the language before that. Commissioner Schwankl stated, right, the language before that is just including but not limited to. That is good because it is giving it to you carte blanche. Ms. Jones replied, it may be talking about two different things. There are the Code requirements about what you are allowed to have outside in your yard, and then this is a definition of what is considered a public nuisance. It is to trigger the staff for their need to come in and remove material. Commissioner McClellan stated one is a Code violation and one is a misdemeanor. One will get you in trouble and for the other you will get a note that says, cease and desist or make corrections, etc. By virtue of becoming a nuisance, by virtue of this, that is a misdemeanor. Did he read that correctly? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЋЊƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones replied, they are both misdemeanors. Commissioner McClellan asked, so do you get a ticket? Ms. Jones replied, the City can. They choose to do abatements when they can and remove materials, because it is more cost-effective and quicker for the City to do it that way. However, staff can issue citations as an alternative. Where a citation would be issued is when someone has done this over and over again and they just cannot seem to change the behavior. Commissioner McClellan stated so as to the CommissionerÔs point, it may have been a storage issue but kind of a reoccurring, ever ominous storage presence that becomes more of a nuisance and is dealt with by abatement. He asked Ms. Jones whether staff has had to abate the same thing from the same property? Ms. Jones replied, yes. Chairperson Kondrick stated you would not think so but it happens a lot. Chairperson Oquist asked under Power of Officers, paragraph 2, they are going to give a written notice personally or by notice on the property as well as sending another letter out via U.S. Mail? So they get two notices? Ms. Jones replied, it is saying they may hand deliver it. That is what they do in emergency abatements. Mr. Cahill has had some situations where he is not sure where the owner of the property lives. Therefore, he will send a letter in the mail; but he will also post a letter on the property. They want to try and make sure they are reaching the owner somehow. They always have to send a letter. Ms. Jones stated on the last page of the text amendment, Section 2 is about modifying that language a little bit to make it clear staff is going by the assessment procedures in Chapter 128. This is for landscaping which are the lawn mowing abatements and the most common type of abatement staff does. Ms. Jones stated Section 3 is referring to that same language in Chapter 128 which is referring to the hazardous building section. Where they run into this mostly is a home that has had a fire and, for whatever reason, sometimes it goes on for months and even years. The house is a hazard and is not being taken down. That is when staff gets involved with removing hazardous buildings. Fortunately, they have not had to do that yet since she has worked for the City. Commissioner Heintz asked, would they have to go through the Fire Marshall? Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЋЋƚŅЋЌ Ms. Jones replied, there is a whole process in State Statutes and City Code about that. If and when they ever do that, they would follow the same process in Chapter 128. Ms. Jones stated they are looking for the Planning CommissionÔs recommendation to the City Council on this as well. 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 HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. It is straightforward and understandable. MOTION by Commissioner Oquist approving Text Amendment, TA #19-03, by the City of Fridley, to amend Section 110 of the City Code for the purpose of clarifying the definitions and procedures for exterior nuisance abatements. Seconded by Commissioner Heintz. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS: 1. March 7, 2019, Housing and Redevelopment Authority MOTION by Commissioner Oquist accepting the above minutes. Seconded by Commissioner McClellan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. April 4, 2019, Housing and Redevelopment Authority MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff accepting the above minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Schwankl. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. March 12, 2019, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Fridley Planning Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 tğŭĻЋЌƚŅЋЌ MOTION by Commissioner Heintz accepting the above minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. April 1, 2019, Parks and Recreation Commission MOTION by Commissioner Heintz accepting the above minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Heintz stated the Parks and Recreation Commission is working on a comprehensive plan for all of the parks, but doing a little special emphasis on Moore Lake. The City is setting up a web portal for members of the community, especially around the Moore Lake area, to be able to log into and give their suggestions as to what they would like to see in the park. They are looking to update that park. They had plans to update that before, but, because of the Watershed District, they had to put it on the back burner. They have some hopeful plans in three to five years the park will be one of the nicest in the City of Fridley. Chairperson Kondrick stated one of the problems with that park is that the lake has a water problem, including the lake having been contaminated, the lack of use, and the fact the City had some tough economic times a few years ago where the CityÔs tax allowances from the State were really cut down. The money was not available to the Park and Recreation Department to do the things the City wanted to. That has changed now and there are funds to do some things they could not previously do. ADJOURN: MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary