Loading...
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.