Loading...
040709 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 2009 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:17 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Arnst, Gagne, Geng, Hutchins, Ruoff and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Zerby Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES  3 March 2009 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3 March 2009 as presented. Motion passed 5/0/2 with Gagne and Geng abstaining due to their absence at the meeting. Commissioner Gagne stated he read in the minutes that he was appointed to the position of Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission at the last meeting. He is okay with that appointment as long as there is not expectation that he would ever assume the Chair position should the Chair position become vacant. Chair Schmitt stated he would have to step down from the Planning Commission because he has relocated to another City. Director Nielsen stated Schmitt has to give a written notice to the City. He asked Schmitt st if he could attend the April 21 meeting, noting he planned on fixing brats for the Commissioners. Chair Schmitt asked Director Nielsen what the timetable is for completing the Comprehensive Plan; he wasn’t sure if he should attend any of those discussions. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has completed its review of more than half of the twelve Planning District Area Plans. The public hearing for the updated Comp Plan is scheduled for May. Four neighborhood meetings will be held once the review and update of the Area Plans is complete; the Comp Plan and three Area Plans will be discussed at each meeting. Any changes resulting from this process would be incorporated by the end of 2009. S T U D Y S E S S I O N 1. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Director Nielsen distributed a copy of a draft text amendment to the City Code Chapter 103.02 and Chapter 104.03 regarding administrative enforcement for certain City Code violations. He explained that during its 18 November 2008 meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an ordinance for certain City Code violations. A number of cities have implemented such a policy. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 April 2009 Page 2 of 6 Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance subject to its review and approval by the new City Attorney. Attorney Tietjen has reviewed the proposed code amendment and her comments are included in the draft ordinance distributed this evening, noting all of the Attorney’s recommended changes were technical and not substantive. He stated the code amendment will be reviewed by the City Council at its 13 April meeting. Nielsen cited a situation during 2008 where a property owner was cited for a zoning violation for bringing a very large shipping container on to his property. When the violator ignored the violation letter a complaint was signed and executed at Hennepin County District Court. The City eventually won the case, but only after it spent over $8,000 on attorney fees. It took over nine months to resolve the case. Nielsen explained the initial steps of the administrative code enforcement process will be the same as those of the current process used to handle smaller violations. That is, the City receives a complaint, the complaint is verified, and the City issues a citation to the violator. In a situation such as the one in 2008 the City’s only recourse was to take the violator to court. Under an administrative code enforcement process the City would write a citation for certain levels of offenses and impose a local fine. A violator could appeal the citation in what would be the equivalent of a city court where a city-appointed hearing officer would preside. This process greatly minimizes the need for lawyers by either the violator or the City, especially for minor violations. If the violator does not like the ruling of the hearing officer, the violator could appeal the citation to the Council. If the violator did not like the Council’s ruling, the violator could appeal it in District Court. This process would not prohibit the City from pursuing violations through District Court. Nielsen stated it is his hope that this process of citations and fines will reduce the occurrence of chronic violations such as sign violations. The fine should be enough of a deterrent to keep people from displaying the small signs. He did not think the process of appealing to a hearing officer would occur very often. In response to a comment from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained only one hearing officer will hear an appeal. Nielsen stated the decision has not been made on how many hearing officers the City will have. Commissioner Arnst questioned what “each day” in the statement “Each day the violation exists constitutes a Separate Code Offense.” meant. Director Nielsen explained each time the City conducts an inspection and the same violation is in existence the City can issue a subsequent citation for the same Code Offense. He stated chances are the inspections will be done every few days, unless a violator completely ignores the City and then an inspection could be done daily. The City’s intent is to have the violator correct the situation. Arnst suggested the statement be clarified; for example, each day after the original citation was issued. In response to a comment from Commissioner Vilett, Director Nielsen explained the fines for subsequent citations for the same violation will increase for each subsequent citation issued per the rates specified in the City Code. He commented that the proposed fines are not as high as in they are for some other cities. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained if a violator does not pay the fine then the fine may be assessed against their property, if the violator is the property owner, and collected in the same manor as property taxes. For unpaid fines that cannot be assessed to a property the City can use any means at law to collect the fine with the hope that the City Attorney would not have to become involved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 April 2009 Page 3 of 6 In response to a question from Commissioner Arnst, Director Nielsen stated when the policy is first implemented the Planning Director, the Building Inspector, the City Engineer, the Director of Public Works and the police will be authorized to write citations. Nielsen explained this process is primarily set up to address zoning and nuisance violations. He stated he has asked other City Staff to consider if there are areas under their jurisdiction in the City Code where this process be used. For example, it may be possible to use this process for illicit discharge violations, noting they would have to have higher fines than currently proposed. He explained it’s illegal for someone to rent out a dwelling if they do not have a rental permit. The current remedy for that violation is either a rental permit is obtained or the tenant moves out. If a tenant files some type of complaint, the property owner either fixes the problem or the tenant has to move out. Under the administrative enforcement process the property owner either corrects the problem or they receive a citation. In response to another question from Commissioner Arnst, Director Nielsen explained that for example this could possibly be used for issues with dogs. Director Nielsen explained the fines which range from $50 to $150 for the first offense are well under the fine for a misdemeanor; that was by design. Adjustments can be made to the fee/fine schedule as the City gains experience with this process. The City’s primary expense will be for the hearing officer. Council Liaison Zerby asked if there are any statistics available on the number of citations that could have been issued in 2008 under this process, to which Director Nielsen responded there aren’t. Nielsen stated there were 2 – 3 rental situations in 2008 where this process could have been beneficial to the tenant. This process should help address the issue of signage. Some larger cities which use a similar process issued a fair number of citations when they first implemented the administrative enforcement process, and after a while the number issued was reduced substantially. He noted those cities that use this process are pleased with the results. Council Liaison Zerby asked if the City would still have the ability to clean up a property (e.g., when the City removed a junk car from a property) if it implements this process. Director Nielsen explained the City used to have an ordinance that permitted it to resolve a violation by doing the work and billing the violator, until it was told the City couldn’t go on private property to do that anymore. Over they last few years the City has found out there are cities that will do the work and charge the cost back. It was unlikely the City would remove a junk car from a property again; but it could clean up a yard and charge the cost back. There are differing opinions about whether or not cities have that authority. Commissioner Vilett commented the City of Chanhassen will cut the grass on properties if the violator will not do so and charge the cost back. Nielsen stated the most effective way to get rid of violations like that is to say if the violator doesn’t correct the violation then the City will do so at a much higher cost than the violator would have paid to do it. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the City does not have a grass length ordinance but that situation can be gotten around through the City’s weed ordinance; there is likely to be some weeds in a long lawn. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained this process could be used to address motor boat violations at the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commissioners for their input on the proposed fee/fine schedule, noting he thought they were on the low end. He stated this process will help with building code violations; the biggest violation being not obtaining a construction permit. The penalty today is the cost of the permit is doubled. The administrative enforcement fine would be in addition to the penalty already in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 April 2009 Page 4 of 6 existence. Chair Schmitt stated from a builders perspective sometimes it’s worth it to them to start work before they can obtain a permit because of their construction timeline and their cost not to stay on schedule. Director Nielsen stated Council will be provided with copies of the following for its consideration during its April 13 meeting: the ordinance that includes the City Attorney’s revisions; the fee/fine schedule; and the request for qualifications for hearing officers. He hoped, but was not promising, to have a small manual for the process for them also. In response to a comment from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the $50 fine for first-time public health violations is basically for a violation of the nuisance ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated the City reviews its fees/fines annually. Commissioner Geng stated he thought the fines were low and could be raised without encouraging the violator to consider hiring an attorney to help them fight the citation. Chair Schmitt stated he thought the $150 fine for first-time wetland violations and tree preservations violations was too low. A developer would easily pay that fine if they could clear off more of a property. Director Nielsen stated $150 probably wasn’t much of a deterrent. Schmitt suggested the fine for removing trees could potentially be based the size of the tree(s) removed. Nielsen stated he will review the City’s tree preservation ordinance in conjunction with the administrative fines and determine how that should end up. He then stated depending on the scope of a violation another process may be used to penalize the offender. Director Nielsen stated he was hesitant to charge to high of fines when this process if first implemented. Chair Schmitt stated he thought the intent should be to stop violations before they happen and for sure after the first violation. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen stated a rental permit is $60 per dwelling unit. In response to another question, Nielsen stated the $100 assessment fine would be the same for single or multi-family dwelling units. Hutchins questioned why it would not be per unit. Council Liaison Zerby stated he also thought the proposed fines were too low. It will cost the City more than the lowest fine of $50 to issue and process a citation. He thought the $50 fine for Class A Offences should be doubled. Director Nielsen agreed that the business owner known for frequently violating the sign ordinance had to pay a $100 fine that could be an incentive for them to change their behavior. In response to a question from Commissioner Vilett, Director Nielsen explained today if the City receives a complaint from a tenant the property owner either has to fix the situation or the rental permit is revoked and the tenant is out. He stated often times the complaints received from the tenant are attempts by the tenant to use it as an excuse to break their lease arrangement. Director Nielsen stated Staff is unsure if it there has to be a public hearing held for the fees/fines schedule because the fine schedule relates to land use ordinances and the fee schedule relates to zoning ordinances. He commented the City is considering an increase to its text amendment fee and a public hearing would have to be held for that. The public hearing for administrative enforcement fee/fine schedule could be held during that same meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 April 2009 Page 5 of 6 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN  Discuss Planning District 3 Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had preliminary discussions about the Planning District 3 Area Plan during its 17 February meeting. He distributed an updated copy of the Area Plan based on the Commissions discussion. He commented four of the Commissioners reside in that district, and that District 3 is relatively stable. Nielsen reviewed the more significant changes to the Area Plan. Nielsen stated a reference to there being “paper streets” in District 3 was added; “paper streets” are platted rights-of-way that have never been improved as City streets. Also added was a statement that all “paper streets” will be addressed in an overall study of undeveloped rights-of-way throughout the City. He explained the Planning Commission will review all the City’s paper streets in 2009 and make a recommendation on what should happen with them; should they be vacated or should they be held on to because they could eventually be further developed. Nielsen stated the Plan was updated to indicate the Gideon Glen project is complete, although there is some cleanup work that will likely be done this spring. The discussion in the Area Plan about redevelopment of the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing (i.e., the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road) was revised significantly. A statement was added saying this quadrant, including all of the land currently zoned for commercial use, is prime for redevelopment. Outdated language about the redevelopment of the quadrant was deleted. The City expressed interests regarding the potential redevelopment of that quadrant were added: 1) it would like it to be a unified and coordinated development; 2) it could be redeveloped as a planned unit development (PUD) which is more flexible; 3) it could possibly be redeveloped as mixed use (i.e., a mix of commercial and residential uses) as part of the PUD process with the mixed use being either horizontal or vertical; 4) it could possibly be redeveloped with an opportunity for senior housing: 5) it prefers it be predominately retail and office uses rather than service commercial; and 6) there is a possibility the City would be willing to consider some type of public financial assistance for the redevelopment such as tax increment financing (this needs to be added to the Plan). Chair Schmitt stated caution should be exercised about any reference to tax increment financing; he suggested any type of assistance be made more general. Director Nielsen stated reference to the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection redevelopment in the Plan was updated to reflect the project was completed. A statement was added about the Corridor Study completed in 2004. It explains the study addressed commercial development, vehicular traffic, pedestrian circulation and the preservation and reforestation of the Gideon Glen site. It also states the study also sets forth a concept plan that provides the guidelines for commercial landscaping along the corridor. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 April 2009 Page 6 of 6 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated that the 21 April 2009 Planning Commission meeting will be a study session and it would be devoted to continued discussion of the Planning District 3 Area Plan with the hope of finalizing it, review of the follow-up drafts of the Area Plans for Districts 1 – 4 and 10 – 12, and initial discussions about parking regulations. Nielsen stated he would grill brats for the Planning Commissioners at its next meeting and he suggested people come a little early. There was discussion about the $1 charge that residents will see on their Xcel Energy bill. 5. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 9 March 2009 and the 23 March 2009 Regular City Council meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Hutchins asked Council Liaison Zerby to elaborate on discussions about the Southshore Center, which Zerby did. Director Nielsen had a short discussion about the South Tonka Little Leagues’ request to continue its request to allow signage on the ball field fences on the two ball fields it uses in Freeman Park to a May th 11 Council meeting. • SLUC Commissioner Vilett reported on the Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled Foreclosures Part 1 she attended on March 25, 2009 (this was done after the meeting was adjourned). • Other None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 7 April 2009 at 8:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder