Planning Commission - 09/27/2004 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources;
Al Gray, City Engineer;Kevin Schmieg, Manager of
Building Inspections; Mike Franzen, City Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brooks,
Kacher, Koenig, Rocheford, Seymour, Stoelting, Stoltz and Sutherland. Absent: Nelson
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to approve the agenda. Motion carried
8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD AUGUST 23, 2004
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Brooks to approve the minutes. Motion
carried 7-0. Koenig abstained
B. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
MOTION made by Rocheford and seconded by Brooks to approve the minutes.
Motion carried 7-0. Stoelting abstained
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EXTERIOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODE AMENDMENT. This is a
proposal to amend City Code Section 9.16, to regulate exterior building
maintenance, enforcement and the appeals process.
Kevin Schmieg, Manager of Building Inspections, presented the proposal. He
stated that in the past, building codes were implemented as reactionary measures
when there was a problem, either a disaster or maintenance issue. Schmieg would
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 2
like to see this building code implemented as a pro-active measure to stop
problems before they start. The following list of objectives is a vision for the
amended Exterior Building Maintenance Code. The objectives are:
1. Decrease the risk of blight.
2. Decrease the concentration of crime.
3. Keep peace within the neighborhoods.
4. Achieve theoretical gain in the future quality of buildings.
5. Maintain property values.
Schmieg stated that all blighted areas start with a"broken window". The broken
window theory consists of a window that is broken and not repaired. The
building continues to deteriorate with poor grounds maintenance and lack of
paint. Neighbors become upset. Another neighbor's house needs painting or has
a broken window. The neighbor who feels his house's value has been diminished
by the neighbor's property feels that investing in their property is a waste of
resources. Owners sell homes; new homeowners come in. The process continues
until it becomes a neighborhood standard. That's how all blight starts. The goal
of any property maintenance code is for the community and in our case, the city
of Eden Prairie, to set standards instead of leaving it to local neighborhoods to
render an opinion as to what they believe the standards to be. The age at which
buildings begin rapid deterioration without proper maintenance is approximately
25 years. The public perception of Eden Prairie is one of a brand new
community;but the average age of a single-family home is currently 20 years, and
28 % of the homes in Eden Prairie are over 25 years old. There are homes in
Eden Prairie that are showing signs of distress. The average age of rental housing
is currently 17 1/2 years, 13.3 % are over 25 years old and within 3 years 21 % will
be over 25 years old. It holds true that the properties and rental properties that are
over 25 years old are the majority of the property that has the problems.
Schmieg showed a graph depicting theoretically how construction goes without
maintenance codes. When constructing a home, the building code is set at a
minimum standard; typically most homes are built above that standard. As they
age, the house is deteriorating. At this point, needed repairs or maintenance needs
to be done. If this does not take place the building will eventually become
substandard and hence unlivable. The earlier the maintenance code is put into
place the higher the standard can be set.
Schmieg also stated that if houses or properties are allowed to become
substandard then the standard is set much lower. When a maintenance code is in
place early on the standard can be much higher. The gap that there is between the
standard that can be set and the substandard building is a theoretical gain in the
building quality. By putting them into place early on, the gain will be in overall
quality of the housing stock and buildings. This is an overall progression code.
Schmieg stated that there are rental-housing codes already in place. He also went
on to say that rental properties have to meet a standard. The standard is based
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 3
upon not cosmetic items but more maintenance items; such as hot and cold
running water, heat, and windows that work. The next step in the progression of
codes is the Exterior Maintenance Code; such as is proposed. The next step
following this would be Rental Housing Licensure since there are a number of
properties in Eden Prairie that are rental properties but the City is not aware of
them. They are not conforming with zoning requirements and with building
standards for being rental properties.
Schmieg said the next step would be Truth in Housing. These are points in sale.
And lastly, would be the change of occupancy under conditional use permits.
This is used on commercial/industrial properties. It is an overall progression of
codes.
Schmieg stated that the goal of the Exterior Building Maintenance Code is to
require the maintenance of buildings, fences and other structures so that their
physical condition does not detract from the surrounding neighborhood. Schmieg
also wanted to draw attention to Subdivision 1; which is called nuisances. In this
declaration of nuisances it states that buildings, fences and other structures that
have been so poorly maintained that their physical condition and appearance
detract from the surrounding neighborhood are declared to be public nuisances.
Subdivision 2, of this code,reflects the standards that are set up to maintain this
property.
Schmieg also stated that there has to be enforcement procedures set into place to
uphold this code. He also stated that there are four different types of offenders
and because of that, there have to be different enforcement procedures for each
one. The four different types of violators are:
1. Those that choose not to maintain their property.
2. Those that don't realize that timely repairs are needed.
3. Those that do not realize that lack of repairs are an issue.
4. Those that do not have the wherewithal, either physical, mental or
financial to make the repairs.
The different enforcement procedures can be any of the following: educating the
homeowner of needed repairs, issuing citations, and offering loans or grants for
repairs and maintenance. These are just a few of the enforcement procedures and
are based on individual circumstances.
Stoelting asked Franzen if he had any follow-up comments. Franzen responded
by stating that in order to maintain that"just moved in look" the City will need to
enforce its housing and zoning standards. He also stated maintaining the homes
will contribute to the quality of life in their neighborhood.
Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was no public input.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 4
Rocheford asked how many houses this would impact right now if this ordinance
was in effect. Schmieg responded that it would not affect very many. He said
that he did not have a certain number but felt once this is implemented that
neighbors will call on certain houses in their neighborhood.
Rocheford commented that he thinks it is absolutely critical that something like
this be in effect and that the City has some vehicle where they can enforce
neighbors to keep up their property.
Koenig asked if conservation easements would have any relevance to
the ordinance the Board was discussing. Schmieg responded by stating that this
would have no relevance to conservation easements; that it's primarily aesthetic and
based upon structures.
Koenig asked if the City has any recourse for mismanaged homeowners
associations that don't have enough funds to maintain their outer areas. Schmieg
responded that the City does have recourse by working with the associations for a
period of time and be flexible with them.
Koenig asked how the information would be publicized. Schmieg responded they
would use the Eden Prairie News, websites, mailings, and that the press would pick
up on this.
Koening commented that she is very much in favor of this.
Sutherland asked if the proposed code is directed at single-family, rental units or
commercial buildings. Schmieg responded that it will be based on all of them but
primarily rental units.
Sutherland asked what Schmieg's broken window theory is based on; is it a story or
science. Schmieg responded that they base their codes on theory and human nature.
Sutherland asked if there would be a cost to the City to correct this and how it
would affect the budget. Schmieg responded that it would be a very minimal cost if
it is done now versus later.
Sutherland asked Schmieg to compare the Building Code Standard which is
principally performance based and maintenance which is aesthetic. Schmieg
responded by stating that the Building Code is a minimal standard and that the
aesthetic coincides with the maintenance part of the code.
Sutherland asked how higher or lower standards are set. Schmieg responded by
stating that early on higher standards should be set.
Seymour asked how this code compares to neighboring communities. Schmieg
responded that some language was borrowed from other communities.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 5
Kacher asked if there was an ordinance out there today and does the City have
any recourse. Schmieg responded that the ordinance states that buildings have to
be maintained and that if his Department sees a problem they go out and talk to t
he business or homeowner. And that they do try to get different agencies
involved.
Kacher asked how many complaints would there be today. Schmieg responded
by stating there would only be about 4 to 5 a year.
Kacher agrees with the principal but has a concern about City involvement, as in
giving out violations.
Stoelting made a follow-up to this point by asking what sort of actions would the
City take in order to make people comply with the order. Schmieg stated that it is
very similar to the noise ordinances and that violations are very extreme.
Stoelting asked Schmieg to talk about the Notice of Rights to Appeal. Schmieg
responded that it would probably be the Board of Appeals that would look to see
if the issue that the inspector made was a reasonable request. He said that this
would give them a place to go prior to court, at no cost to them.
Stoelting asked if the Board of Appeals would be us or the City Council.
Schmieg said he will talk to the City Attorney to get clarification.
Stoltz expressed his concerns about this being very subjective and asked how they
would keep this fair and analyze what's 10%. Schmieg responded that an order
would go through him first and then to the appeals process. And that he's not
looking at houses at 10% but rather ones that are 40—50%. He stated that the
goal is to get the problem remedied and not to take people to court.
Stoltz stated the interpretations concern him. That this seems very subjective and
feels that it needs more language to outline violations. Schmieg responded that he
would have a list of items that he would check off as seen in the rental unit
inspection form.
Brooks made the comment that once you let the homeowner know there is a code
in place that things will get fixed a lot quicker than if there wasn't a code. It
becomes a hassle when the homeowner does not fix the problem. He also stated
that there are challenges enforcing it but he would be happy to vote for it.
Koening asked if there were problems with commercial and industrial property.
Schmieg responded that most of the commercial properties are being taken care of.
Kacher asked how the City would handle small business owners that couldn't
make ends meet and had maintenance issues. Schmieg responded that they would
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 6
work with the business owner but that the same loan and grant programs would
not apply to them.
MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0.
MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Koenig to approve the Exterior Building Maintenance
Code Amendment. Motion carried 7-1, Kacher opposed.
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen discussed the Regional Framework Plan. He stated that every 10 years the City
is required by law to update its comprehensive plan. He stated that our current plan is up-
to-date with the Regional Framework Plan that came out in January and that there does
not need to be any philosophical shifts in the City's approach development.
Kacher commented that the perception that residents feel about Eden Prairie is that there
is not much open space. Franzen stated that the open space is scattered around the City
and a lot of it is not visible from major roads. Most of the public land was purchased
between 1970-1995. From 1995 to today more land is being developed as a percentage
of remaining land rather than being preserved. This land has always been designated for
development. The land sat open for quite some time because sewer and water was not
available.
Koenig made the comment that the people are misinformed when they think there isn't a
lot of open space because they see so much development in their own area but not Eden
Prairie as a whole.
Koenig asked if Franzen was aware of the situation with Lake Elmo and the Metropolitan
Council. Franzen responded by stating that he was familiar with the situation that Lake
Elmo disagreed with the framework and understood the legal reasons why the Met
Council has regional authority,but felt there were other ways that the development
question could have been resolved. The region did pay for extension of sewer interceptor
and state highways so it is logical to have development go where the investment is made.
Stoelting asked if the Metropolitan Council just came out with the Regional Development
Framework and what should the Planning Board do with this document. Franzen
responded that every 10 years the Met Council prepares a framework to guide the region
on growth issues. The framework preceeds the City's Guide Plan update process. The
City needs to acknowledge the framework and respond to the region's projections for
population and household growth. Since our current plan is consistent with the
framework, the Board does not have to do anything.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2004
Page 7
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kacher to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of
September 27, 2004, at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried 8-0.
Franzen informed the Planning Board there will be no October 11, 2004 meeting.