HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes06_1128City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2006
PRESENT: Commissioners De Leo, Lageson, Lukermann, Mercer-Taylor, Rodich, and Ryan. Also present was Staff Liaison Deb Jones.
ABSENT: Tracy, City Council Liaison Kuettel
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ryan at 7:05 p.m. The minutes of the September 26, 2006 meeting were approved with one correction.
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed new ordinance on mobile storage structures
Staff Liaison Jones presented background information on this issue. During the past year several residents have expressed concern to the staff about the presence of portable storage
units in residential neighborhoods. Concerns have focused on the appearance of these structures, location and the length of time they are present. The worry is that these units may tend
to become, in effect, permanent and, when located on rights of way, they may block sight lines and create a traffic hazard. At present the City does not have any regulation that applies
to these structures.
The City Council discussed the issue in workshop and concluded that some regulation of portable storage units is in order. The Council has submitted a proposed ordinance for Planning
Commission consideration. The proposed ordinance would create a definition of mobile storage structures and add a section to the code that limits the location and size of the structures,
limits their duration of use and defines some obligations of property owners regarding safety and security.
Commission Chair Patrick Ryan opened the public hearing. There were no persons who wished to speak. The hearing was closed.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Proposed new ordinance on mobile storage structures
Commissioner Lageson asked how many complaints had been received. Ms. Jones said she personally knew of three or four regarding two properties, but it was possible there were others
that had not been passed on to her. Commissioner Rodich said that 72 hours might be more reasonable than the suggested 48, as it would allow people to keep containers over a weekend.
He also asked for more discussion on the impervious surface requirement. Commissioner Ryan asked about the 10 foot dimensional restriction in the definition, and Commissioner Lukermann
pointed out that the definition and the ordinance are not consistent regarding dimension. Mr. Ryan said his research found that ordinances in other cities do not use a minimum dimension
in their definition of portable storage structure. Ms. Jones said that the Commission can certainly amend the ordinance in its recommendation to Council.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lukermann, Commissioners discussed the kinds of uses to which people put these structures and circumstances under which property owners would
rent them. They made some careful distinctions between the containers defined in the
ordinance and trailers (with wheels) that might be used temporarily for storage under some circumstances. The needs of large construction projects were also discussed, including non-residential
properties such as Falcon Heights Town Square.
Commissioner Lukermann said it might be appropriate to make allowance or exception for projects where there is an active building permit. This initiated a discussion of reasonable uses
in general, including time limits. Commissioner Lageson said he would prefer that the structures not be allowed on the public streets at all. Other commissioners pointed out circumstances
under which the property owner would have no other choice. A general consensus was that people would probably prefer not to put them on the street if they had any other choice, and that
the City should not create requirements that impose unusual expenses on property owners by going against the usual rental agreements offered in the market.
In response to commissioners’ questions, Ms. Jones said the City has been treating storage containers on the street similarly to dumpsters. There has been no regulation on private property.
Speaking in practical terms, she said staff would like to know where these structures are, when they arrived and who is the responsible person. This led to a discussion of permitting
and notification requirements in other cities, which several Commissioners had researched. Mr. Ryan found that other cities have permitting requirements and fees and make allowances
for containers on private property during major remodeling projects. In response to a question from Mr. Lageson, Ms. Jones said having the information submitted in a permit enables staff
to enforce the code in a timely manner. Cities are empowered to regulate structures.
Commissioner Rodich raised the issue of impervious surface again. Why restrict location to paved surfaces. Commissioner DeLeo said he saw it as an issue of community character, similar
to parking cars on the lawn, which Falcon Heights does not allow. Mr. Lageson pointed out that the rental companies will only deliver to a paved surface.
Mr. Lageson also pointed out that because storage structures are expensive and that property owners would have an incentive to have the structures as short a time as possible. He asked
why neighbors can’t talk to each other instead of running to the City with complaints all the time. How far can we go toward restricting people’s use of their property? Mr. DeLeo responded
that the issue is really community character and whether storage structures are even appropriate or desirable, so the purpose of the storage is irrelevant. To him, the purpose of the
ordinance is to maintain community quality and character. There are other storage options people can use. There was additional discussion on this philosophical aspect of the issue.
Commissioners decided to go through the draft ordinance and modify it in accordance with all their discussions. With much additional discussion, the following changes were made:
Eliminate the 10 foot dimension from the definition
Change the 48 hour time limit to 72 hours on the right of way
Change the 3 week time limit on private property to a longer time, at least 4 weeks.
Allow structures no more than twice in any 90 day period (increased from 60 days)
Include a permit or registration requirement, but let the details be determined as administrative policy.
Correct some typographical errors noted on the chairman’s copy.
Commissioners had some additional questions and concerns to be passed on to the Council.
Is a separate ordinance needed for commercial properties?
Does the ordinance under consideration allow for large construction projects?
Is the language on security too vague?
Is the size limit in Section 2 reasonable by industry standards, for both residential and non-residential property?
In the discussion Commissioners gave careful consideration to the amount of regulation that would be in the best interests of both the city and residents and how specific that should
be in the ordinance. Careful thought was also given to safety and security considerations and to possible unforeseen circumstances that might complicate enforcement of the ordinance.
Commissioner Lukermann moved, Mercer-Taylor seconded, that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as amended above, provided the City Attorney and Council address
the concerns and questions posed by the Commission. The motion passed with 5 in favor and 1 opposed.
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mr. Lageson asked for an update on recodification. Ms. Jones said Dtaff is putting the finishing touches on the master copy to be sent to the recodification company. The draft has been
reviewed by “many eyes” and marked up by “many hands.” It willl be sent off within days, and the final copy should be delivered by the end of the year. She reminded the Commission that
the new code is, as always, a “work in progress” and subject to change.
Ms. Mercer-Taylor reminded the Commission of the invitation to join the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee at its meeting on December 11. In response to a question from Mr. Rodich,
Ms. Jones reviewed the formal role in the approval of the new comprehensive plan. This is different from the steering committee’s information gathering role. Mr. Lageson asked what happens
if the University sells some of its land in the City. Jones replied that underlying zoning is already in place on University and State Fair land. Presently that zoning is R-1. One of
the things that might happen in the new comprehensive plan is that the City might reassess that underlying zoning, but at this time the University has no plans to sell that land.
On behalf of the City staff, Ms. Jones expressed thanks to the members of the Planning Commission for their hard work in the past year, especially the members who are leaving the Commission
after serving two terms: Jim DeLeo, Tom Lageson, Pat Ryan and Michael Tracy. On behalf of the remaining Commissioners, Ms. Lukermann expressed appreciation to the members whose terms
are expiring.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison