Loading...
1999-07-27 - joint with PCCITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING JULY 27, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a joint session on Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 6:00 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Planning Commission Members: G-eoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Becky Glister, Orvin Burma, and Michael Mueller. Also in attendance were City Attorney John LeFevre, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 6:07 p:m. and welcomed all in attendance. ORDINANCE REVISION SECTION 350:420: REPEALING OF CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBDIVISION 9 & 10 PERTAINING TO NON-CONFORMING USES TO BE REPLACED BY NEW LANGUAGE The City Planner explained that the language is to allow a policy decision by staff instead of the Planning Commission and Council review of nonconforming properties when there is a variance request for a conforming structure. The policy would be changed to streamline the review process. He presented an example of a typical residential lot with a conforming three-season porch prOposed to be constructed to the back or lakeside of the home. The proposed porch is conforming to all lot setbacks but the house is non conforming with a four foot side yard setback as well as a detached nonconforming garage. The City Planner explained that under current standards, this request would be considered by the Planing Commission and then the Council. If the amendment is approved, the process would allow this three-season porch addition to go through a staff review and administrative type of approval. If the construction meets all applicable Code sections, it would not go through a review process. The City Planner presented the proposed ordinance and language amendment. He reported on discussion from the last Council meeting regarding the option of changing or expanding the language. He stated he talked with the City Attorney and staff is open to that amendment since the intent would remain. Councilmember Brown stated one of the problems with this type of scenario is if the structure starts out as a conforming deck and then is added onto and becomes a three- season porch and then a complete addition to the house. He noted that with the proposed amendment, no review would be required by the Planning Commission or the Council. The City Planner stated that is true if it is conforming. 547 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION IOINT MEETING - JULY 27, 1999 Councilmember Hanus noted that the structure to be added would be conforming. The concern is the nonconforming structure which triggers the need for review. He noted the example of the detached garage which is nonconforming, and explained that with this scenario when the garage has deteriorated and needs repair, it still needs a building permit, staffs review, and permit issuance. The permit could not be issued in that ease without a variance since the structure itself is nonconforming. Councilmember Hanus stated he is not as concerned with a proposed structure if it is conforming. Councilmember Weycker stated if the detached garage is in poor condition and if the Planning Commission review is not required, the applicant would not be asked to improve the garage condition. She stated that language could be added to include that scenario. Councilmember Brown stated if an additional garage is added that is conforming, the existing nonconforming garage can remain. He stated that with the current process, the applicant can be required to remove the nonconforming structure so the lot becomes more conforming. Councilmember Brown stated this allows the City the opportunity to clean up some nonconforming issues. Councilmember Hanus stated that while this is a valid argument, the other side of the issue is that you could get rid of the nonconforming structures. However, current and past City Councils have not shown they are willing to do that. He explained that this results in the need to write ordinance language so it is "soft" enough to allow some leniency. Councilmember Hanus asked what happens if a project is submitted and a structure is found to be in a dilapidated condition. He asked if the City can require a repair of something else. The Building Offidal explained the Building Code provides for adequate requirements for repair of any structure in disrepair and if nonconforming it would come before the Council for review if repairs constitute 50% of the value of the structure. Councilmember Hanus noted with the proposed language only staff review would be required so the only "trigger" to cause forced improvement or removal would be safety issues or Building Code maintenance. He noted that under the current or proposed change, the structure cannot be repaired without a variance. The Building Official explained there is no change from the current ordinance under that scenario and the ordinance modification only allows conforming structures to be constructed, which is the key. He stated this is what has been occurring by variance. The Building Official agreed there are minor extractions and things that get corrected but for the majority of the cases, the history is to approve conforming structures. He noted the ordinance proposal allows that to happen without the longer process. This results in a change of policy to allow the procedure to be consistent. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated he appreciated the opportunity for the Planning Commission to be involved in the discussion. He suggested this issue is more a sense of where the City is going in the future and if the building is in the envelope as much as 548 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - JULY 27, 1999 possible or pushing the maximum. He stated the streamlining issue and not holding the homeowners "hostage" is a good idea but he supports a modification to address the concerns he has. Mueller stated he hoped the Council had the opportunity to talk about what they see the Planning Commission doing. He stated the Planning Commission would like to take over more of the review process in the downtown area, community center proposal, etc. Mueller stated his biggest concern with the proposed amendment is with the situation involving a detached garage that is quite old. He stated if they are constructed in nonconforming locations he believed it was time to get rid of them. He presented a diagram showing a nonconforming attached garage and explained that with the proposed amendment, staff would not have the opportunity to'review or take action regarding it unless it was a hazardous situation. He stated he is more concerned about detached structures that are in nonconforming locations. Councilmember Ahrens stated the year before the Shoreland Ordinance became effective, a 100 square foot shed was constructed in a conforming location and now they want to build a conforming four-season porch. She stated if the garage is in good condition but easily moveable, should they be told the City has changed the law and now has Shoreland Management. She expressed concern that even though the garage was built when it was legal, the resident could not get a permit to construct a conforming four-season porch until the 100 square foot shed is moved to a conforming location the City likes. She suggested this type of situation should be grandfathered in. Planning Commissioner Mueller agreed this is a difficult situation but noted that there are laws and he does not believe it is a good situation to have two structures facing each other that provide the same function. He stated this is not the proper use of property and the zoning laws have changed to make it a nicer community. Mayor Meisel asked about the hardcover requirement. Councilmember Hanus stated it is assumed the new structure would not bring the property over the allowable hardcover requirement. Councilmember Weycker asked if language could be included to address that situation so it can be reviewed by staff. Councilmember Hanus stated if staff is doing a site inspection and finds a nonconforming structure, staff would not have the opportunity to review the nonconforming structure unless it is a hazard. He asked if this is the case. The Building Official explained the Building Code allows staff to look at any building involving a maintenance issue, however, the City is not very aggressive about that issue. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated under the new ordinance, if the proposed structure is conforming, staff would not have the opportunity to consider the nonconforming structure since they would not visit the site. The Building Official stated this is correct unless a site visit is done to assure the drawing is correct. 549 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - JULY 27, 1999 The Building Official commented that an option is to have better enforcement and, perhaps, a housing program. Planning Commission Chair Geoff Michael stated the cities of Richfield and West St. Paul told business owners that they no longer liked pylon signs and allowed them a period of 10 years to bring them into conformance. This also occurred with .rooftop signs. He agreed that business owners may not have liked it but it was still done. Councilmember Ahrens stated that is a different situation and she does not like the philosophy of not allowing a conforming structure unless a nonconforming structure is removed. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated they have had at least six situations such as the diagram he presented. He stated in one case the applicant was allowed three years to remove the nonconforming structure. He stated if all live by the same rules it is better but it is not always enforced uniformly. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated he has a concern with garages or detached sheds on the street side because they are very visible. He stated to beautify the City, the buildings need to be in a conforming situation, which all residents prefer. He stated it is hoped to arrive at that level over a period of time. He stated he believed it was not a "big deal" to require a shed or garage to be removed if the resident was building a new one, especially if they are given a time period of three years to remove it. Planning Commissioner Mueller noted that one of the agenda items tonight involves such a case and the applicant has agreed to remove the existing garage. Councilmember Hanus stated the number of nonconforming structures will be removed over time anyway. He stated he had a nonconforming garage and was given a period of time for removal but it would have been removed anyway. Councilmember Ahrens asked what the community feeling would be if an ordinance was adopted to require removal of all nonconforming garages within a period of ten years. Councilmember Brown noted that some properties are too small to construct a conforming garage in a conforming location. He explained that the intent is to streamline the process. He noted that sometimes the action of the Planning Commission is a unanimous vote and, perhaps, the Planning Commission should be allowed to end the process when it is a "cut and dried" consideration and recommended by a unanimous vote. He stated that would streamline a month off the process plus it would allow the Planning Commission to review the request. If it were a split vote, then Council review could be required. Councilmember Hanus stated that process would be better than what has stood in the past. He agreed the proposal by Councilmember Brown would reduce the process by several weeks to one month. However, the only staff time reduced is attending a Council meeting since a staff report and presentation to the Planning Commission is still required as well as filing documentation with the County, and certifications from the City Clerk. He noted the suggestion by Councilmember Brown would not reduce any of those processes. He 550 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL .I01NT MEETING - .~ULY 27, 1999 explained that his intent with th.e piop0sed language was to allow cases that are conforming to be under staff review rathe~ than including the 'Planning Commission and Council processes. Planning Commissioner Weiland 'stated the Council has been elected to make those decisions. He noted the Planning Commission meets on Monday and the Council meets on Tuesday so, if it was a unanimous decision, the 'Council could consider it the very next night. He noted the Planning Commissioners are not voted into office and stated he believed the Council should be required to review each and every case. Councilmember Hanus stated some planning cases are considered by the Council the next night but it is difficult for staff to handle all of the paper~vork in that short time frame. Also, it means the Council receives the request as a handout the very night of the meeting which makes it difficult for the Council. Planning Commissioner Weiland stated if it is already known that the planning case is a unanimous decision, then staff would also be aware of it. He urged the Council to not take the decision making process away from the electec[ officials of the City. He stated he believes the Planning Commission does a good job in their review and he does not see why additional staff information would be needed for the Council except to place it on the consent agenda. Councilmember Hanus explained the need for a written resolution and, perhaps, legal input from the City Attorney. He stated the issue is where to "trigger" the point of review, noting some want it more strict and others less strict. Councilmember Ahrens asked staff if they had reviewed past variances to determine the number that would not have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and of those, how many were a unanimous vote by both bodies. The Building Official stated it is a high percentage for conforming structures. The City Planner advised that since 1996 there were 49 cases which is about 35% of the total cases and all received unanimous support from both the Planning Commission and the Council. Planning Commissioner Voss asked if the Planning Commission is a final authority in most cities. He asked if staff had ever conducted a study on the time that would be saved with the new proposal. Voss stated it appeared an inordinate amount of staff time is required to review conforming variance requests and that time could be better spent on things like visiting the site and reviewing the conditions. He stated he believed there were too many variances and he would prefer to be involved in other duties as a volunteer Planning Commissioner. He stated he would prefer to be involved in other positive activities such as the downtown center, TIF, etc. He added that staff should definitely be doing something more positive with their time than to be reviewing conforming additions to property. Voss stated there has not been an addition to the City's inspection staff and yet the case loads and work loads have increased and more is being expected. He stated this is not fair to Mr. Sutherland and he believed the proposed ordinance language should be adopted. 551 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - JULY 27, 1999 Councilmember Hanus noted that with the savings in time the amendment would result in, if a permit request is received under this scenario and nonconforming structures are noticed on the site, that permit Could be delayed one day so a drive-by inspeCtion can be conducted by staff to determine if there are violation issues involved or if the structure is solid and not in need of repair. He stated this could be accomplished from an internal procedural process and would address the concern expressed by Planning Commissioner Mueller. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated he is open to more streamlining and would support a compromise that if a garage (or shed) is being asked for and one already exists, then the variance process would be required. He stated this would deal with the use of the structure. Mueller stated when they visit sites they assure drainage is being handled correctly and look at issues beyond the request for the new structure. He stated if staff is allowed to issue a permit at City Hall, staff probably should not subjectively do a site visit. Mueller asked if there is a situation where variances are not desired, such as allowing additional hardcover when nonconforming structures already exist. He inquired regarding the direction of Mound and if the City wants things built as close as possible. Councilmember Hanus stated that the other "side" allows people to fully utilize their private property the way they see fit as much as possible without destroying the community and going backward. Planning Commissioner Mueller stated he believed the proposed amendment is "going backward" since it is not moving forward. The Building Official stated that surveys are required for some structures with review by the City Engineer to assure drainage issues are addressed. The Building Official assured the Council of staff's intent to do a better, job in that regard. Mayor Meisel asked the Planning Commission what they view would be the solution to make what is being proposed work. Planning Commissioner Mueller suggested the proposed language be referred back to the Planning Commission to assure the process will work. Planning Commission Chair Michael stated the Planning Commission has already spent several meetings on this issue, as has the Council. He stated that in the future he hoped as much time was spent on an issue like a truth in housing program. He stated that he does not see that much time saved or burden placed on the Planning Commission so he supported the ordinance remaining as it exists. He asserted that very few residents have expressed serious complaints about the process. Councilmember Weycker stated her fiancee's variance case took two months to resolve. Planning Commission Chair Michael stated he would like the decision to be made by the Council and the Planning Commission to answer to the ordinance requirements. Planning Commissioner Voss stated the prefect language and ordinance will never be found but the proposed amendment is a strong, effective ordinance and he would prefer to be 552 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - JULY 27, 1999 doing something more important and be able to deal with issues connected to the downtown area. Councilmember Ahrens agreed with the difficulty in trying to draft an ordinance to cover every possible scenario. Planning Commissioner Voss stated he has heard many negative complaints from the public about the City of Mound regarding this process. Councilmember Hanus noted that at the last meeting, the Council considered a case that had an error and commented that the process is now so complicated that the error got through City staff, the Planning Commission, and Council. He stated the proposed amendment would simplify the process considerably. Planning Commissioner Glister stated her support to approve the amendment and pointed out that if it is found a change is needed, the ordinance can be revised. She noted that if there is a problem structure, it will come to the attention of the City and/or staff and stated she would also prefer to deal with issues beyond garages. Mayor Meisel asked if there are any further comments to be made on this issue. Planning Commissioner Burma asked the Council to consider that the proposed process does not take into consideration, unless the Building Official is very astute, that people may submit less than current surveys that do not identify un-permitted work which may have occurred on the lot. He noted those issues are raised when the site is visited. Burma stated that the proposal by Councilmember Brown would be his choice so the Planning Commission, on a unanimous vote, would be the final word with the caveat that the Council act as the Board of Appeals so the resident has an opportunity to appeal to the Council~ Burma agreed that the Council is elected while the Planning Commission is appointed but to streamline the process that would be an option that would work. He stated his willingness to work through the process, whichever is approved by the Council. Mayor Meisel thanked the Planning Commissioners for attending and providing their input. Mayor Meisel adjourned this.joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Attest: Council Secretary Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager 553