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