Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCPacket072820City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission City Hall 2077 Larpenteur Avenue West Tuesday, July 28, 2020 7:00 p.m. A G E N D A NOTE: THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD BY WEB CONFERENCE* A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL: John Larkin ____ Tom Williams ____ Matthew Kotelnicki ____ Scott Wilson ____ Joel Gerich ____ Scott Phillips ____ VACANT Council Liaison Gustafson ____ Staff Liaison Markon ____ Introduction of new member: Scott Phillips C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 23, 2020 D. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS E. ADJOURN F. WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. Discuss variances 2. Discuss Zoning Code review 3. Discuss vacant building ordinance Next meeting: August 25, 2020 *To view the virtual meeting, visit this Zoom link. You can also listen to the meeting by calling 312-626-6799 and enter the Webinar ID 818 8113 3576. City of Falcon Heights City Hall 2077 Larpenteur Avenue West Minutes Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:00 PM NOTE: THIS MEETING WAS HELD BY WEB CONFERENCE A. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by John Larkin at 7:00 PM. B. ROLL CALL: Present: Larkin, Williams, Wilson, Gerich Absent: Kotelnicki Present Staff and Council Liaisons: Staff Liaison Markon, Council Liaison Gustafson C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. January 28, 2020 2. June 2, 2020 Workshop The minutes were approved by roll call, as presented, by unanimous consent. D. AGENDA 1. Discuss Garden Ordinance Chair Larkin asked Liaison Markon to provide an overview to the garden ordinance. (see Request For Planning Commission Action, June 23, 2020, Discuss Garden Ordinance) Markon stated that in early May 2020, in the form of a Workshop, the City Council discussed a possible garden ordinance. Then in the first regular meeting of May, the City Council approved an interim ordinance that prohibited the cultivation of front yard vegetable gardens. On May 27, a vote on the part of the City Council was taken to rescind the interim ordinance, but the motion did not pass. Following the vote, the City Council instructed Staff to convene subcommittees from both the Environmental and Planning Commissions to begin drafting a permanent ordinance that would address ordinary front yard gardens in general and community gardens. The interim ordinance will last for one year or until a new permanent ordinance is formally adopted. Markon further stated that the subcommittees were to be made up of a couple members from both the Environmental and Planning Commissions. The Environmental Commission met on June 8, 2020 and selected Chair Jim Wassenberg and Nick Olson to be members of the subcommittee. Markon said that it was his goal to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have and to select a couple members to also join a subcommittee. The Staff has not done much research yet, waiting on the subcommittee to be selected. Markon said that he is the liaison of both Commissions so he will act as the main contact between the Commissions and subcommittee. The hope is that together the Commissions will come up with a good draft ordinance that can be brought to a City Council workshop and then back to the two Commissions if necessary. The guess is that the Planning Commission will hold the public hearing or hearings, since that is what happened with the native landscape discussion in 2019. Also, there will most likely be an online feedback form, as with the native landscaping, where residents can fill out a small survey after reading the draft. Markon stated that hopefully after a few months there will be something passed. It is certainly not the intention of Staff and the City Council to drag out a decision on a new ordinance longer than a handful of months, even though a year is allowed to make a final decision. Markon asked Mayor Gustafson for anything to add on what he just stated. Mayor Gustafson said that he had nothing to add except to offer that the City is looking for guidance from the community and the Environmental and Planning Commissions to help set up a garden ordinance that addresses the issues with clarity so that it works with the entire City of Falcon Heights. Chair Larkin asked if this ordinance applies to all types of gardens including front, back and side yards as well as community gardens? Markon answered saying that he thinks the final ordinance is expected to reflect all types of gardens that were mentioned. The intention is to apply the ordinance to all zones, and all places where there are gardens, which would include community areas as well. Markon referred to Mayor Gustafson for additional comments. Gustafson responded that the current ordinance must be updated because it isn’t very clear on where gardens can be located and how they can be utilized. It is an accepted auxiliary use for a homeowner to place a garden in their yard and to maintain it the way they want. Gustafson commented that the subcommittee will need to look at all kinds of use. Gerich asked Liaison Markon if he could go over procedurally what he would expect to happen in the next few months. Markon responded that once the subcommittee for the Planning Commission is formed, with the exception of basic background information, he wasn’t anticipating getting started until after the July 4th holiday in doing some research, in seeing what other communities are doing, and to see what best practices might be available. We have plenty of resources for our research including Green Step Cities, the CERTS group (Clean Energy Resource Teams), and others. There are plentiful resources that the subcommittee can start digging into and then draft an ordinance. Markon says that he would anticipate that towards the end of summer to early fall we will have a good draft to share. The subcommittee will be working off-line, but then providing their information to their respective Commissions so that by the end of summer or early fall, a draft should be available for community feedback. Larkin asked whether the subcommittee needs to have scheduled and announced meetings, so if someone from the public wanted to attend they could. Markon answered they would not have to announce meetings since it is not a quorum of either Commission. The public wouldn’t need to be notified. For the native landscaping ordinance, the subcommittee meetings were held at one of the commission member’s houses. However, because of the interest in this topic, meetings could be held at City Hall or open Zoom broadcast. Markon thought the subcommittee meetings would not be held publically, but it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be held in an official location. Larkin said to Markon that he had mentioned that City Administrator Thongvanh had a desire for the two Chairs to be on the subcommittees. Larkin says that he doesn’t feel like he would need to be on the subcommittee. Larkin asked Markon if he knew what City Administrator Thongvanh’s thinking behind that idea was? Markon responded by saying that he thinks that City Administrator Thongvanh’s intention was to have the Chairs along with both Council Liaisons, Mayor Gustafson and Council Member Andrews. The two subcommittees would have those four people that include Chair Wassenberg, Chair Larkin and the two Council Liaisons, and then another voting member from each Commission to be part of our six member subcommittees. Markon thought City Administrator Thongvanh’s intention for the Chairs to be part of the subcommittee was because of their experience with their respective Commissions. Larkin said yes he is fine with being part of the subcommittee, but asked if Wilson, Williams, or Gerich have a desire to be on this subcommittee. Wilson says he has an interest in being on the subcommittee. He says that he also happens to live two doors down from the property owner that brought up this issue. Wilson feels like he is close to the issue. His father is a green thumb. His dad’s yard is all gardens. He grew up gardening with his father. Wilson does have a vegetable garden in the back yard. He spent every weekend this summer gardening, mostly ornamental gardens but some vegetable. Wilson says he has done quite a bit of research on the subject because the issue that brought this up is on his street. Wilson says he has actually driven through or ran through all of Falcon Heights and counted front yard gardens. Wilson mentioned that he will definitely want to invite those people (who have the gardens) to come to our public forums and comment on their gardens. Gerich said that he would volunteer as well. Williams commented that if we get back to the vacant lot (homes) issue, he would work with Larkin on that. Markon said that assuming that the topics stay light, the Commission would certainly pick up vacant homes again during the late summer. Larkin mentioned that the vacant homes subcommittee was approved, but never got started. Wilson said that gardening topic is big on social media, so people are watching what the City is doing when it comes to this issue. Wilson says he is very close to this issue, so if the other members of the Commission feel that this is a problem, he is definitely fine with Gerich being on the subcommittee instead of him; its up to everyone on the Commission and what they think. Mayor Gustafson says he is anticipating that we will hear from quite a few members of the community on this topic, and will probably hear from a lot more people from outside of Falcon Heights. Gustafson continued by saying that it is kind of good to get advise from all over the world so we know we are going to do the right thing. Mayor Gustafson thinks that Wilson has researched the topic considerably and that the subcommittee will benefit from having more information. Even if a person lives close to something, it doesn’t mean that that person is necessarily going to take a certain stance. That is kind of what we are looking for. We will all be learning. Markon offered that he can certainly bring it up to City Administrator Thongvanh to see if he would be comfortable without the Chair of the Commission on the subcommittee. Markon said that if Chair Larkin wanted to hand it off to Wilson and Gerich, or if Larkin wanted to be on the subcommittee, he would be happy to run it by City Administrator Thongvanh. Larkin said that if Gerich, was really interested in this, he would be more then happy to have Wilson be the lead and then Gerich to be the second individual from our Commission if Gerich is really passionate about being on the subcommittee. Larkin said he would rather the people on the subcommittee be passionate about it. Larkin said he has no green thumb. Gerich said in response, he would be perfectly happy to join the subcommittee with Wilson. Larkin replied, “OK, is anybody in disagreement, Tom (Williams), are you in disagreement at all?” The answer from Williams was “no”. Larkin said “OK, Justin (Markon) why don’t you clear this with City Administrator Thongvanh?” Larkin reiterated that he thinks the idea here is that we have two individuals on the Planning Commission that are passionate about it, and that just seems like they would be best being part of the subcommittee. Larkin says he has a question for Markon, Mayor Gustafson, or maybe Wilson because he has already been involved with this. Larkin wondered whether anyone looked into our current zoning requirements and how some of those requirements might impact gardens. Larkin says the one he was thinking of was fences. Just about everybody that has a garden has a fence on it, but it is a temporary fence not a permanent fence. How does our current zoning requirement for fences play into a potential garden location, and how will people mitigate rabbits and other types of critters that like to chew on vegetables? Markon answered that from his perspective, we haven’t paid much concern for temporary fences around gardens, whether they are in the back yard or raised beds in the front yard. It is not something that has come across his radar that folks are concerned about. Markon says as far as property line fences go, those certainly are a concern, to make sure that they are in the right place and follow the rules. But if they are small chicken wire fences or fences to keep rabbits and deer out, he hasn’t heard too much concern about that. Markon says it doesn’t mean the fence ordinance could not be changed, but at the moment it hasn’t come across his radar. Wilson said that one concern would be if it was a community type garden; there should definitely have to make sure there was a fence around it. And what type of fence that would be, it probably should be more than chicken wire. It should be something similar to community park garden fence. Williams asked if existing vegetable gardens will be grandfathered in? Markon answered that they have been. The interim ordinance did not affect rear yard gardens or side yard gardens, so those can continue as they are and new ones can be planted. The interim ordinance is affecting new front yard gardens, moving forward as of mid-May. Williams questioned if the effected gardens would typically be vegetable gardens. Markon answered that the interim ordinance was written specifically for vegetable gardens. E. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Liaison Markon said the only item he had was that to note that our next meeting on July 28 will be in person at City Hall. We are starting to have events in person once again. We will observe social distancing. Masks will certainly be encouraged, and we will make them happen back at City Hall. F. ADJOURN Chair Larkin asked if we have a motion to adjourn? Wilson said he will motion to adjourn. Gerich gave a second. Larkin then took roll call for adjournment. All members were in favor. Adjourned at 7:28 PM. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Families, Fields and Fair __________________________ The City That Soars! Item Discuss Variances Description From a League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed “use variances” as opposed to “area variances” from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota— state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located. --- The City of Falcon Heights has sections of the City Code devoted to variances, which are included as an attachment. As the information from the memo above notes, variances are considered for deviation from the provisions set in the zoning ordinance, usually heights and setbacks. They are not allowed for “uses.” For example, the keeping of chickens is allowed in the R-1 zone but not the R-4. A property owner in the R-4 zone could not request a variance if they wanted to keep chickens. Instead, they would have to request a City Code amendment. State statutes and City Code stipulate the conditions that must be met in the granting of a variance. “Practical difficulties” is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. These factors are reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character. The LMC memo highlights the standards as well as other considerations for variance requests. Meeting Date July 28, 2020 Agenda Item Workshop Agenda F1 Attachment See below Submitted By Justin Markon, Community Development Coordinator Often, a property owner or contractor will begin planning a project and determine their plans do not fit the zoning standards. They sometimes will ask if a variance could be granted. Staff will caution that the variance process can be costly, time consuming, and is not guaranteed to result in their favor. When a variance application is being considered, oftentimes staff and the Commission Chair will meet with the property owner and/or contractor to discuss their project and what considerations will be taken into account if an application is submitted. If an application is submitted, staff will work with the property owner/contractor to ensure all necessary documents have been submitted and that the process is clear. A public hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission, with a recommendation to the City Council being made following the hearing. The City Council has final authority on variance requests. Attachment(s) • League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo Action(s) Requested Staff would like to provide this information as background to the topic of variances. City Code of Falcon Heights Sec. 113-62. - Variances. (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Practical difficulties means the same as that term defined in Minn. Stats. § 462.357, as may be amended, meaning that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, shall not alter the character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variance means a modification of or variation from the provisions of this chapter consistent with the state enabling statute for municipalities, as applied to a specific property and granted pursuant to the standards and procedures of this chapter. (b) Purpose. The purpose of this division is to provide the procedure and criteria for variances. (c) Application. (1) Any owner of property or a person holding a contract to purchase property, or an optionee holding an option conditioned solely on the grant of a variance, or the duly authorized agent of such appellant, may make application for a variance. The application shall be made on forms prepared by the zoning administrator. (2) The application shall contain the legal description of the property, the zoning district in which it is located, a brief statement of the reasons the variance is requested, a statement of the ownership interest therein of the applicant and the names and addresses of the owners of all abutting property as listed on the current real estate tax rolls. The application shall be verified. (d) Use variances prohibited. Variances may not be approved for a use that is not allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. (e) Review criteria. The city council shall not approve any variance request unless they find that failure to grant the variance will result in practical difficulties on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, all of the following criteria have been met: (1) The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter. (2) The variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) That, there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. (4) That the granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. (5) That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stats. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. Variances may be approved for the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. (f) Conditions. The city may attach conditions to the grant of the variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (g) Procedure. (1) All applications for variances shall be referred to the planning commission for study and recommendation to the city council. (2) Within 60 days, the planning commission shall forward its recommendations to the city council; if no recommendation is transmitted within 60 days after referral of the application for variance to the planning commission, the city council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. (3) Variances are granted or denied by motion of the city council. (h) Termination. The violation of any condition of the variance shall be the basis for the city council, following a hearing, to terminate the variance. If the property is not used or improvements substantially begun within a period of one year after the decision granting the variance, unless the variance decision provides otherwise, the variance shall be terminated. Unless the city council specifically approves a different time when action is officially taken on the request, approvals which have been issued under the provisions of this section shall expire without further action by the planning commission or the city council, unless the applicant commences the authorized use or improvement within one year of the date the variance is issued; or, unless before the expiration of the one-year period, the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by completing and submitting a request for extension, including the renewal fee as established by city council. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the approval permitted in the variance. A request for an extension not exceeding one year shall be subject to the review and approval of the zoning administrator. Should a second extension of time, or any extension of time longer than one year, be requested by the applicant, it shall be presented to the planning commission for a recommendation and to the city council for a decision. (Code 1993, § 9-15.03; Ord. No. 11-01, § 1, 7-13-2011) State Law reference – Variances, Minn. Stats. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Families, Fields and Fair __________________________ The City That Soars! Item Discuss Zoning Code Review Description Chapter 113 of the City Code of Falcon Heights is the Zoning Code. This Chapter is the largest (1/3 of the entire City Code) and sets out the regulations for land use in the City. There are many topics contained in the Zoning Code, including definitions, administration, zoning districts and regulations, off-street parking, standards for lighting, swimming pools, and tennis courts, and signs. The Zoning Code governs how the City looks and is official City policy for the uses of land. As such, it should reflect our community’s goals. Many provisions in the Zoning Code were last updated in the mid-1990s. While this does not make them “out of date,” there are certainly some aspects of the code that require tidying up. One example were fence regulations, which were updated in early 2019. It is also an opportune time to review the Zoning Code now that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. The Comprehensive Plan set out goals for how our city should look in twenty years, which may require changing some standards (such as densities and parking). City staff would like to discuss beginning review of the Zoning Code. Staff would anticipate dividing the Code into sections, similar to how the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed and updated. Attachment(s) None Action(s) Requested Staff would like to discuss review of the Zoning Code and receive direction on how to move forward. Meeting Date July 28, 2020 Agenda Item Workshop Agenda F2 Attachment None Submitted By Justin Markon, Community Development Coordinator REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Families, Fields and Fair __________________________ The City That Soars! Item Discuss vacant building ordinance Description The city has explored adopting a vacant building ordinance in the past, dating back to 2012 during the recession. It was briefly discussed in 2017 as well. Attached are various materials that discuss vacant building ordinances and what options may be available. The city has a number of existing ordinances that address potential concerns with vacant properties. Chapter 22 – Environment Article II – Blight Sec. 22-19. - Causes of blight or blighting factors. It is hereby determined that the uses, structures and activities and causes of blight or blighting factors described herein, if allowed to exist, will tend to result in blighted and undesirable neighborhoods so as to be harmful to the public welfare, health and safety. No person shall maintain or permit to be maintained any of these causes of blight or blighting factors upon any property in the city owned, leased, rented or occupied by such person. (4) Noxious weeds, vegetation and substances. No owner agent or occupant of any premises shall permit upon his or her premises any noxious weeds as defined in Minn. Stats. § 18.77, weeds or grass growing to a height greater than six inches or which have gone or are about to go to seed, fallen trees, dead trees, tree limbs or items which are a fire hazard or otherwise detrimental to the health or appearance of the neighborhood. (5) Structures b. Vacant structure. In any area zoned for residential purposes, the existence of any vacant dwelling, garage, or other outbuilding, unless such buildings are kept securely locked, windows kept glazed or neatly boarded up and otherwise protected to prevent entrance thereto by vandals is illegal. Meeting Date July 28, 2020 Agenda Item Workshop Agenda F2 Attachment(s) See below Submitted By Justin Markon, Community Development Coordinator The city also adopted the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), which provides for a number of requirements related to the upkeep of properties. 301.3 Vacant structures and land. All vacant structures and premises thereof or vacant land shall be maintained in a clean, safe, secure and sanitary condition as provided herein so as not to cause a blighting problem or adversely affect the public health or safety. Section 304 – Exterior Structure of the IPMC is attached. The city of Minneapolis has a robust vacant dwelling code, which also includes vacant building registration. This code is also attached. Attachment(s) • 2012 information packet compiled by city staff • Section 304 of International Property Maintenance Code • Minneapolis Chapter 249 – Vacant Dwelling or Building, Nuisance Condition Action(s) Requested Staff are seeking discussion from the commission to determine if it is a priority to expand the vacant building ordinances. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota City Code CHAPTER 249. - VACANT DWELLING OR BUILDING, NUISANCE CONDITION 249.10. - Policy. Pursuant to authority provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.26, permitting cities to enact and enforce ordinances on hazardous buildings, and in order to enhance the livability and preserve the tax base and property values of buildings within the city, and based upon the findings contained in section 249.20; and because of the need to assure that buildings which are capable of rehabilitation are promptly rehabilitated and buildings which are not capable of rehabilitation be promptly demolished, the city hereby declared that it is the policy of the city to promote rehabilitation of vacant and unoccupied buildings, and to assure a prompt process for demolition of hazardous buildings through a procedure fixing appropriate responsibility in accordance with due process requirements. (92-Or-110, § 1, 9-11-92) 249.20. - Findings. The city council finds, determines and declares that buildings which remain vacant and unoccupied for any appreciable period of time become an attractive nuisance to children, a harborage for rodents, and invitation to derelicts, vagrants and criminals as a temporary abode, and an increased fire hazard, and increased risk of explosion due to the theft of internal piping, and that the unkept grounds surrounding such property invite the dumping of garbage and rubbish thereon; that such buildings are permitted to become dilapidated since such buildings are often economically obsolete and the owners of such buildings are unwilling to expend the necessary funds to repair or raze the buildings; that such buildings contribute to the growth of blight within the city, depress market values of surrounding properties to the detriment of the various taxing districts and require additional governmental services; that the use and maintenance of property in such condition and manner endangers the public safety and health, constitutes an unreasonable use and condition to the annoyance, discomfort and repose of a considerable number of the public, is detrimental to the public good and to the common welfare; and renders a considerable number of the public insecure in the use and enjoyment of their property, and thus may constitute a nuisance condition. Adequate protection of public health, safety and welfare, therefore, requires the establishment and enforcement of the means by which such nuisance conditions may be abated. (76-Or-102, § 1, 7-9-76; 78-Or-233, § 1, 11-9-78; 92-Or-110, § 1, 9-11-92; 2008-Or-073, § 1, 9-12-08) 249.25. - Securing vacant buildings. (a) In general, if any building becomes vacant or unoccupied and is deemed hazardous due to the fact that the building is open to trespass and has not been secured and the building could be made safe by securing the building, the director of regulatory services may order the building secured and shall cause notice of the order to be served upon the owner of the premises. Such notice may be served personally or by mail. Service by mail is complete upon mailing a copy of the order to the owner at the last known address. If the owner fails to comply with the order within six (6) days after the order is served, the director of regulatory services shall cause the building to be boarded up or otherwise properly secured. Whenever a building is boarded up pursuant to the authority of this chapter, the director of regulatory services may cause all openings to the building to be boarded and secured. (b) Emergency. When it is determined by the director of regulatory services or the chief of police, or the fire chief that an emergency exists with respect to the health or safety of persons in the community, and immediate boarding and securing of a building is required, and where danger will exist to children, transients or others in the absence of an immediate boarding or securing of the building, the director of regulatory services or the chief of police, or the fire chief may waive all requirements herein and immediately board or otherwise secure the building, provided that: (1) The conditions showing the existence of an exigency are documented in writing by the director of regulatory services or the chief of police or the fire chief or their designees. (2) Notice be mailed immediately by the department invoking this section to the address of the owner and taxpayer, and, if recorded on the assessors rolls, the address of the mortgage holder, of the date of boarding or otherwise securing and the reasons therefor. (c) After a vacant or unoccupied building has been boarded or otherwise secured under this section, should the owner fail to maintain the building in a secured condition until such time as it has been repaired and reoccupied, the director of regulatory services shall resecure any openings into the building whenever it again becomes open to trespass, without further notice to the owner. An administrative fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and all other costs incurred by the city for boarding or otherwise securing a building under this chapter, including, but not limited to the actual costs for boarding, inspecting, posting and monitoring the building, shall be assessed as provided in section 227.100. "Owner," for the purposes of this section, shall mean the person who is listed as the contact person on the current rental licensing application on file with the city, if any; or, if none, the person listed as owner by the city assessor on the homestead record; or, if none, the taxpayer as shown by the records of the city assessor. "Owner" shall not include a community development agency organized pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 1980 Chapter 595. (d) After a vacant or unoccupied building has been boarded or otherwise secured under this section for a period of sixty (60) days, the owner of the building shall have the gas to the building turned off and the building winterized. If the owner fails to have the gas to the building turned off the director of regulatory services may order the utilities company to shut off the gas to the building. The director of regulatory services shall then require the building to be winterized to prevent the water pipes from freezing and damaging the building. The costs incurred by the city for winterizing the building shall be assessed as provided in section 227.100. (94-Or-123, § 1, 9-16-94; 2001-Or-054, § 1, 4-20-01; 2006-Or- 065, § 1, 6-16-06; 2008-Or-008, § 1, 2-1-08; 2008-Or-073, § 2, 9-12-08; 2013-Or-165, § 1, 12-6-13) 249.30. - "Nuisance condition" defined; waiver of waiting period. (a) A building within the city shall be deemed a nuisance condition if: (1) It is vacant and unoccupied for the purpose for which it was erected and for which purpose a certificate of occupancy may have been issued, and the building has remained substantially in such condition for a period of at least six (6) months; or (2) The building is unfit for occupancy as it fails to meet the minimum standards set out by city ordinances before a certificate of code compliance could be granted, or is unfit for human habitation because it fails to meet the minimum standards set out in the Minneapolis housing maintenance code, or the doors, windows and other openings into the building are boarded up or otherwise secured by a means other than the conventional methods used in the original construction and design of the building, and the building has remained substantially in such condition for a period of at least sixty (60) days; or (3) Evidence, including but not limited to neighborhood impact statements, clearly demonstrates that the values of neighborhood properties have diminished as a result of deterioration of the subject building; or (4) Evidence, including but not limited to rehab assessments completed by CPED, clearly demonstrates that the cost of rehabilitation is not justified when compared to the after rehabilitation resale value of the building. (b) When it is determined by the director of regulatory services or the city fire marshal that a building constitutes an immediate hazard to the public health and safety, and after approval by the city council, the sixty-day waiting period set out in this section may be waived and the other procedures, as set out in this chapter, may be implemented immediately. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, accessory buildings such as garages, barns and other similar structures, not intended to be used for human habitation, shall be deemed to constitute a nuisance condition when such buildings are in violation of section 244.1560 of the housing maintenance code which regulates nondwelling structures or when such accessory buildings are structurally unsound in the opinion of the director of regulatory services. (76-Or-102, § 1, 7-9-76; 77-Or-226, § 2, 11-10-77; 78-Or-233, § 2, 11-9-78; 79-Or-016, § 1, 1-26-79; 80-Or-181, § 1, 8-8-80; 84-Or-095, § 1, 6-15-84; 86-Or-236, § 1, 10-10-86; 91-Or-157, § 1, 8-9-91; 92-Or-110, § 2, 9-11-92; 93-Or-142, § 1, 10-1-93; 94-Or-123, § 2, 9-16-94; 2006-Or-059, § 1, 5-26-06; 2013-Or-165, § 2, 12-6-13) Editor's note— It should be noted that Ord. No. 2006-Or-059, adopted May 26, 2006, was effective October 1, 2006. 249.40. - Abatement of nuisance condition. Buildings determined to be a nuisance condition may be rehabilitated or razed by order of the director of regulatory services. (1) Before any action is taken to abate a nuisance condition, except as provided in section 249.25 relating to securing vacant buildings, the director of regulatory services shall examine the building to ascertain whether the nuisance condition should be ordered for rehabilitation or demolition. Among the criteria to be considered are the following: a. The need for neighborhood housing; b. The historic value of the building; c. The impact on the neighborhood and the ability of the neighborhood to attract future residents; d. The capacity of the neighborhood to use the property; e. The zoning and comprehensive plan classifications for the property use; f. The market potential for the property; g. The estimated cost of rehabilitation; h. The severity and the history of neglect; i. The availability of funds for rehabilitation to the owner; j. The structural condition of the building. (2) If the director of regulatory services determines that the building is a nuisance condition, the director of regulatory services shall order the building to be demolished, or rehabilitated. The director may impose any and all conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the order. (3) The department of regulatory services shall give notice of the director's order to demolish or rehabilitate the building to the owner and other persons shown to have an interest in the building deemed to create a nuisance condition. Proper notice shall be sufficiently given when mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner to whom the building is registered with the department of regulatory services or, if not registered, to the owner or other persons shown to have an interest in the property as ascertained by the files and records of the register of deeds or registrar of titles in and for Hennepin County. Such notice shall also be given to such persons that the director of regulatory services has actual knowledge of having an interest in the said property. In addition, such notice shall be served by three (3) weeks' published notice in any newspaper of general circulation in the City of Minneapolis as provided for in Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and by posting such notice at the street entrance to such building. The notice shall state: a. That the director has determined that the building is a nuisance condition as defined by section 249.30 and that the building is to be demolished or rehabilitated. If the director is ordering that the building be rehabilitated, the notice shall state all of the conditions that are to be imposed. b. The specific reasons the building has been determined to constitute a nuisance condition. c. That unless the notice is appealed within twenty-one (21) days of the date the notice was mailed, in the manner provided in section 249.45, the department of regulatory services will proceed to demolish the building or that the department of regulatory services will impose the conditions of rehabilitation on the property. d. The notice shall describe how an appeal may be filed under section 249.45. e. The notice shall state that the owner of the property will be responsible for the payment of all costs incurred by the city in razing or rehabilitating the building, as well as an administrative fee of fifteen (15) percent of the cost. The notice shall state that if the costs are unpaid, the costs and the administrative fee shall be levied and collected as a special assessment against the property as provided for under section 227.100. (4) If no appeal is received within twenty-one (21) days of the notice being mailed, the department of regulatory services may proceed with the director's determination to demolish the building by razing the building, or may proceed with the director's determination to rehabilitate the building by imposing the conditions set forth in the notice. (5) When the owner of a property, that has received a director's order to demolish or rehabilitate the property, intends to sell an interest in the property, the owner must disclosure to the purchaser that a director's order to demolish or rehabilitate the property has been previously issued. (76-Or-102, § 1, 7-9-76; 76-Or-165, § 1, 9-24-76; 78-Or-233, § 4, 11-9-78; 82-Or-256, § 1, 12-23-82; 85-Or-114, § 1, 6-4-85; 92-Or-110, § 4, 9-11-92; 94-Or-123, § 3, 9-16-94; 2001-Or-054, § 2, 4-20-01; 2006-Or-059, § 2, 5-26-06; 2013-Or-165, § 3, 12-6-13) Editor's note— It should be noted that Ord. No. 2006-Or-059, adopted May 26, 2006, was effective October 1, 2006. 249.45. - Abatement of nuisance condition appeals. (a) There is hereby created a nuisance condition process review panel. The panel shall consist of the building official, the fire marshal, the director of community planning and economic development, and the city assessor or their designees. Three (3) members of the panel shall constitute a quorum. The panel shall make decisions by a majority vote. The director of regulatory services' order, as set forth in the notice, shall be upheld if the panel is deadlocked. (b) The panel shall have authority to hear and decide all appeals from the director of inspections' order to demolish or rehabilitate a nuisance condition building. The panel shall uphold or overturn the director's determination that the building is a nuisance condition as defined by section 249.30 and shall uphold or overturn the director's determination that the building should be demolished or rehabilitated. If the director of regulatory services imposes conditions on an order to rehabilitate the building, the panel shall have the authority to uphold, modify or overturn those conditions. (c) Any person wishing to appeal a determination of the director of regulatory services ordering demolition or rehabilitation shall file a written notice of appeal with the department of regulatory services within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the director's order. The notice shall contain a statement of the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of three hundred dollars ($300.00). (d) The panel shall meet at the call of the chair to hear appeals. The panel shall notify the owner and any other person known to have an interest in the property in writing of the time and place of the hearing. In addition, notice of the hearing shall be sent to all property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property and to any neighborhood organization in which the property is located. (e) Notice to the owners, or other parties with an interest in the property, shall inform the owner and parties of (1) the right to appear individually or through a representative or to submit a written statement, (2) the right to examine witnesses at the hearings and offer such evidence as may bear on the decision to demolish or rehabilitate the building, and (3) that the hearing will be recorded. Neighborhood organizations and owners of property within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property shall be entitled to present joint or individual neighborhood impact statements to the panel. The neighborhood impact statements shall specifically address the items contained in section 249.40(1)a., b., c. and d., and such other relevant material as may be offered. (f) At the hearing, the panel shall hear all relevant evidence and argument. The panel may admit and give probative effect to evidence that possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs. The panel shall record the hearing and keep a record of documentary evidence submitted. (g) At the hearing, the department of regulatory services shall present an oral summary of the background and reasons for its recommendation. A report, including any pertinent documents and photos shall be filed as part of the record. All parties having an interest in the property may review department documents, subject to restrictions in the Government Data Practices Act, prior to the hearing, and shall be permitted to present evidence in support of their position. Parties having an interest in the property shall have the right to question witnesses at the hearing. (h) The panel shall render its decision in writing within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing. The panel shall determine whether the building meets the definition of nuisance condition as set forth in section 249.30 and whether the director of regulatory services' order to demolish or rehabilitate the building should be upheld or overturned and shall specify the factual and legal basis for the determination. The panel shall make it determination based upon the preponderance of the evidence. (i) The panel shall mail a copy of its decision to the appellant. (j) The panel shall refer its decision to the city council, which shall have the final authority to determine whether the building is a nuisance condition as set forth in section 249.30 and whether the building should be rehabilitated or razed. The panel's findings shall include the date and time of the hearing before the public safety and regulatory services committee. The regulatory, energy and environment committee may hear arguments from the appellants and from the department of regulatory services, but shall take no further evidence unless the committee determines that the new evidence is relevant, not duplicative, will aid the committee in making its determinations and has been submitted in a timely manner. The committee may, in lieu of hearing the new evidence, refer the matter back to the panel to hear the new evidence and develop the record. If the committee hears new evidence from the appellant or the department it shall ensure that the adverse party has an opportunity to respond to and, if appropriate, rebut such evidence and may, as appropriate, continue the matter in order to do so. (2006-Or-059, § 3, 5-26-06; 2013-Or-165, § 4, 12-6-13) Editor's note— It should be noted that Ord. No. 2006-Or-059, adopted May 26, 2006, was effective October 1, 2006. 249.50. - Alternatives to demolition. (a) The city council may consider as an alternate to demolition: (1) Ordering the owner of any nuisance condition to rehabilitate the building and specifying the time within which such rehabilitation shall occur. If rehabilitation is the alternative required by the city council, the owner shall present a plan for rehabilitation to the director of inspections that shall contain a commitment of funds to accomplish the plan. If the plan required herein is not received by the director of regulatory services within the time ordered by the council, the city shall proceed to demolish the building. (2) If the owner is, for any reason, unwilling or unable to immediately rehabilitate the building, the city may elect to rehabilitate and assess the cost thereof provided that the estimated cost may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the estimated after-rehabilitation market value of the property. Such costs shall be assessed against the property, in the manner provided for in section 249.60. (3) Notwithstanding the limitations of section 249.50(a)(2), and in order to make funds available for rehabilitation, the city may, to the extent neighborhood action plans of the neighborhood revitalization program allow, create a revolving fund for housing purposes to be used in the neighborhood for which the funds have been earmarked. The city may receive applications and consider, where appropriate, loans to owners for housing rehabilitation purposes. (b) The city council shall order demolition or rehabilitation of the building. The city council shall make such order as it deems appropriate based upon the evidence and record of the appeal hearing. The city council may also impose any and all conditions it deems appropriate. These conditions may include the posting of a performance bond in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of rehabilitation. The regulatory, energy and environment committee may postpone its decision and order the owner to update the committee at a future date on the progress of rehabilitation. The order shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner to whom the building is registered with the division of inspections or, if not registered, to persons shown to have an interest in the property as ascertained by the files and records of the registrar of deeds or registrar of titles in and for Hennepin County. (c) The owner of the subject property shall comply with the city council's decision and order. If the owner fails to abide by the order, the director of regulatory services shall immediately notify the city council which may then order immediate demolition or otherwise amend its order. (76-Or-102, § 1, 7-9-76; 77-Or-226, § 3, 11-10-77; 78-Or-233, § 5, 11-9-78; 92-Or-110, § 5, 9-11-92; 93-Or-107, § 1, 7-30-93; 93-Or-142, § 2, 10-1-93; 2001-Or-054, § 3, 4-20-01; 2004-Or-051, § 1, 5-14-04; 2006-Or-059, § 4, 5-26-06; 2013-Or-165, § 5, 12-6-13) Editor's note— It should be noted that Ord. No. 2006-Or-059, adopted May 26, 2006, was effective October 1, 2006. 249.60. - Collection of costs. The director of regulatory services shall notify the owner of the cost incurred in razing or rehabilitating the building, under section 249.50, and the owner shall be responsible for the payment of the same, together with an administrative fee of fifteen (15) percent of the cost, within thirty (30) days of such notification. Upon default of payment after the said thirty (30) days, the cost of such razing or rehabilitating and the administrative fee shall be levied and collected as a special assessment against the property as provided for under section 227.100 of this Code, with interest at the rate of eight (8) percent per annum on the unpaid balance thereof. (76-Or-102, § 1, 7-9-76; 78-Or-233, § 6, 11-9-78; 92-Or-110, § 6, 9-11-92; 93-Or-142, § 3, 10-1-93; 2013-Or-165, § 6, 12-6-13) 249.65. - Revolving fund for abatement of buildings in a nuisance condition. The department of regulatory services shall maintain a revolving fund to be known as the nuisance building abatement fund (hereinafter referred to as "the fund"). The fund may be drawn upon to perform abatement of buildings within the city that have been deemed to be a nuisance condition pursuant to Chapter 249. All costs and fees incurred abating buildings that are a nuisance condition, including appropriate interest, shall be recovered from the property owner pursuant to section 249.60 and 227.100. The fund shall be credited with the collection of the costs and fees recovered. Disbursements from the fund shall not be subject to the provisions and requirements of the procurement process of the city. (2006-Or-059, § 5, 5-26-06; 2013-Or-165, § 7, 12-6-13) Editor's note— It should be noted that Ord. No. 2006-Or-059, adopted May 26, 2006, was effective October 1, 2006. 249.70. - [Authority of city.] Nothing herein shall limit the city's authority under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463. (92-Or-110, § 7, 9-11-92; 93-Or-142, § 4, 10-1-93) 249.80. - Vacant building registration. (a) The owner of a building shall register the building with the director of regulatory services within five (5) days after it becomes a vacant building. In this section, a "vacant building" is one that is: (1) Condemned; or (2) Unoccupied and unsecured for five (5) days or more; or (3) Unoccupied and secured by means other than those normally used in the design of the building for thirty (30) days or more; or (4) Unoccupied and has multiple housing maintenance, fire or building code violations existing for thirty (30) days or more; or (5) Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred sixty-five (365) days and during which time an order has been issued to correct a nuisance condition pursuant to section 227.90; or (6) A vacant commercial or residential building or structure, which is unable to receive a certificate of occupancy due to expired permits, or demonstrated work stoppage of one hundred eighty (180) days or more as determined by the building official. (b) The owner of a commercial building or structure designated as vacant pursuant to this section may appeal such designation within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the designation or a billing statement therefore to the nuisance condition process review panel pursuant to the procedures established in section 249.45. The notice of designation or billing statement shall notify the building owner of such appeal rights. (c) The registration shall be submitted on forms provided by the director of regulatory services and shall include the following information supplied by the owner: (1) A description of the premises; (2) The names and addresses of the owner or owners; (3) The names and addresses of all known lienholders and all other parties with an ownership interest in the building; (4) The period of time the building is expected to remain vacant; and a plan and timetable for returning the building to appropriate occupancy or for demolition of the building. (d) The owner shall submit a plan and timetable that must comply with the guidelines adopted by the director of regulatory services. The guidelines are adopted for purposes of preventing nuisance conditions and maintaining compliance with this Code. These guidelines shall be made available to building owners. The plan shall be submitted at the time of registration, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter to be determined by the director of regulatory services. (e) The owner shall comply with all applicable laws and codes. The owner shall notify the director of regulatory services of any changes in information supplied as part of the vacant building registration within thirty (30) days of the change. If the plan or timetable for the vacant building is revised in any way, the revisions must meet the approval of the director of regulatory services. (f) The owner and the subsequent owners shall keep the building secured and safe and the building and grounds properly maintained until the rehabilitation or demolition has been completed. (g) Failure of the owner or any subsequent owner to maintain the building and premises that result in abatement completed by the city shall be grounds for revocation of the approved plan and shall be subject to any applicable penalties provided by law. (h) The new owner(s) shall register or re-register the vacant building with the director of regulatory services within thirty (30) days of any transfer of an ownership interest in a vacant building. The new owner(s) shall comply with the approved plan and timetable submitted by the previous owner until any proposed changes are submitted and meet the approval of the director of regulatory services. (i) The director of regulatory services shall include in the file any property-specific written statements from community organizations, other interested parties or citizens regarding the history, problems, status or blighting influence of a vacant building. (j) Vacant building fees: (1) The owner of a vacant building shall pay an annual fee as established pursuant to section 91.70. The fee is imposed to recover all costs incurred by the city for monitoring and regulating vacant buildings, including nuisance abatement, enforcement and administrative costs. This fee may be waived or suspended for the current year as a term or condition of a written restoration agreement or order issued pursuant to section 249.50. This fee may be waived for the current year and previous years if the property is acquired by the community planning and economic development (CPED) department. (2) The first annual fee shall be paid no later than five (5) days after the building becomes vacant. Subsequent annual fees shall be due on the anniversary date of initial vacancy. The fees shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of any building permits, with the exception of a demolition permit. (3) Unpaid fees shall be levied and collected as a special assessment against the property as provided for under section 227.100, with interest at the rate of eight (8) percent per annum on the unpaid balance thereof. Upon transfer of ownership, the new owner(s) shall be responsible for all unpaid and subsequent annual fees. (k) A building owner shall provide access to all interior portions of an unoccupied building in order to permit a complete inspection for the purpose of enforcing and assuring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (92-Or-110, § 8, 9-11-92; 2001-Or-054, §§ 4, 5, 4-20-01; 2006-Or-059, § 6, 5-26-06; 2008-Or-017, § 1, 2-29-08; 2009-Or-041, § 1, 5-22-09; 2009-Or-053, § 1, 7-17-09; 2010-Or-062, § 1, 7-23-10; 2013-Or-165, § 8, 12-6-13) 249.90. - Penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this chapter or provides false information on a required registration or plan, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in section 1.30 of this Code. (93-Or-003, § 1, 1-15-93; 2001-Or-054, §§ 6, 7, 4-20-01)