CITY OF NOWTHEN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009 @ 7:30 P.M.
(Minutes are being taped for transcribing purposes only)
Present: Barry Wagner Jeff Pilon Melanie Kern
Jim Scheffler Dale Ames Robert Mahutga
Harold Jorgensen Mary Rainville Al Ulwelling
Others: Barry Olson, Shane Nelson,
Building Official Engineer
Guests: D. Daniel Licht,
Northwest Associated Consultants
Chairman Ames called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM
· Pledge of Allegiance
· Chair Person to be appointed for P & Z for this year.
Ulwelling made the motion to appoint Jim Scheffler as Chair person for P & Z. Mahutga seconded the motion.
Pilon made the motion to reappoint Dale Ames as Chair person for P & Z. Kern seconded the motion.
Vote for Jim Scheffler – 2 for; 6 against
Vote for Dale Ames - 6 for; 2 against
Dale Ames is the 2009 P & Z Chair person.
Scheffler is the 2009 vice-Chair person.
· Approve/Amend tonight’s meeting agenda – January 27th, 2009
Ulwelling made motion to approve tonight’s meeting agenda of January
27th, 2009. Rainville seconded the motion; all in favor, motion
carried.
· Approve/Amend the November 25, 2008 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes There was one change in the minutes of Nov. 25, 2008 and that was on page 5 under item #3. - the eighth sentence should have read 4 more possible openings for the Planning & Zoning Committee and not new openings. Scheffler made motion to approve the amended Nov. 25, 2008 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes. Jorgensen seconded the motion; all in favor, motion carried. Deb Mahutga said there was one more little minor change in these minutes and that was on page one: the Approve/Amend meeting agenda said October 28th, 2008 and should have said November 25th, 2008 and the Approve/Amend - Planning & Zoning Meeting minutes said Nov. 25th , 2008 and should have said October 28th, 2008. So just to switch these two dates around please. Scheffler said to just amend his motion to include this change and Jorgensen said to second his amended motion; all in favor, motion carried. There was not a December Planning & Zoning Meeting because of holiday.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – To Amend/Revise the City of Nowthen Nuisance Ordinance #6 to include the following Sections:
SECTION 1. Authority – No changes or amendments
SECTION 2. Findings and Purpose – No changes or amendments
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 2
SECTION 3. Definitions
1. Abandoned building - Rainville asked for
clarification of an unsecured building? She
said she’s thinking of buildings that are
vacant based on foreclosure.
Attorney Peterson said this definition meant a
building which has broken windows or unlocked
and unsecured; not necessarily just one that is
forclosured. Kern questioned then if this
was meant for all out buildings or storage
sheds that aren’t locked? Attorney Peterson
said yes it could if you wanted to add it. He
said it was meant to cover any building that
was dilapidated by our other ordinances.
The question is if it covers all buildings or
not and that would be up to the committee’s
decision. Kern said the farm buildings would
be a gray area.
Rainville said she would like to see some
wording for homes that are foreclosed and
vacant, not necessarily unsecured, but are
vacant. And also not limited to foreclosures,
but just vacant.
5. Enforcement officer –
Wagner questioned if under enforcement officer
if it should also say Building Inspector.
Attorney Peterson said that this is covered
under the duly authorized representative.
Scheffler said when you read the whole
ordinance he felt that the responsibilities of
the enforcement officer are quite extensive and
is performed by trained people. Scheffler
thought the trained professional should not be
Council member. Attorney Peterson said yes he
would also agree with that. He said he had a
situation were, in fact, the city council was
an officer and it created problems.
Attorney Peterson said he would agree it would
be good to take City Clerk and Council member
out of this section.
12. Noxious substances – Scheffler said he felt that the word manure should not be there because of course we have a lot of farms in Nowthen of which manure is very much present. Attorney Peterson said yes of course it would not be the same as in Minneapolis. Look at this subjectively, and it would have to be pretty bad to be an issue, but this can also be taken out.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 3
19. Refuse – plant wastes such as tree trimmings or grass cuttings, should be allowed and often times these are a part of brush piles.
24. Vermin – Kern said that in definition of vermin
she did not feel that raccoons should be so designated in an area this rural. Kern said they are here as part of the landscape and an unrealistic thing to enforce. Attorney Peterson said this was meant to say these vermins living in cars or homes and causing a health problem. But if wanted this also can be taken out.
SECTION 4. Nuisances
3. Weeds – Kern replied that the statement that
weeds 8” or more high needing to be mowed.
Again that would be an enforcement nightmare.
Does that mean that fields would have to be
mowed then? Attorney Peterson replied that you
can’t enforce everything, but this could be
changed.
Ames said that he knows in some commercial lots
where the weeds have been bad. Building
Official Olson said it can be bad also in
housing developments. He thought it might be
worded such as mowing yard areas. Kern said but
some homes have prairie grasses in their yards
too. This wording was taken from moderately
rural areas, (upper Hennepin County area)
Attorney Peterson said.
4. Stagnant water – Kern said would this, then,
include ponds and wet lands? Attorney Peterson
said no, so it should say to exclude ponds and
wet lands.
7. Sanitary Structures – It was stated that we have
septic tanks and drain fields. Attorney
Peterson said to reword it to say instead of not
permitted it should read as permitted per City
Ordinances.
8. Unsecured building
9. Dangerous structure
Pilon questioned if numbers 8. (Unsecured
building & 9. Dangerous structure were
defined?) Attorney Peterson said yes they were
in SECTION 4. numbers 1. and 4.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 4
15. Obstructions –
A. Snow and ice not removed from the public
sidewalks within 24 hours after the
precipitation has ceased to fall.
Scheffler asked if every person is
responsible for shoveling snow? Attorney
Peterson said usually this is city code,
but Nowthen doesn’t have as of yet.
Ames replied that he thinks this should
stay and we will eventually have sidewalks
in Nowthen.
Scheffler remarked that he thought the whole Nuisance Ordinance itself
seemed focused on residential and not so much the commercial. He
questioned if there should be a separate one for commercial? Attorney
Peterson answered and said that he usually only dealt with residential
and not commercial.
18. Annoyances –
It was stated that these three sections A., B., & C. under Annoyances, all sound like they apply to commercial areas. Attorney Peterson replied that usually these comply through permits that are applied for.
Scheffler said he feels that number 18 is not meant for residential
areas. Ulwelling asked should there be verbage in the ordinance to
separate between the two? Attorney Peterson said it could be done that
way if the Council wanted it to.
Pilon said in Plymouth the residential meets up to commercial, the
lines are clear and if overlapping we need to know where and how to
handle. He said he feels the nuisances should be applied equally to
farm as well as residential.
Mahutga said he felt the whole Nuisance Ordinance applies basically to
downtown Anoka not us or rural. Kern agreed there are a lot of
contradictions.
20. Vehicle Violations –
Pilon asked if it wasn’t 2 licensed cars per
person allowed parked at residence? Attorney
Peterson said it should state the parking of
vehicles, outside. There is no limit of cars
parked inside of a building. Building Official
Olson said as it is now the number of vehicles on
a residential parcel may exceed by only 2 the
number of licensed drivers – meaning if there are
3 licensed drivers, then 5 licensed vehicles are
allowed. This new revised ordinance would allow
for six licensed vehicles.
SECTION 5. Violations – no changes or amendments
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 5
SECTION 6. Disclosure of Responsible Party – no changes or
amendments.
SECTION 7. Inspection of Buildings –
Pilon stated that where it says upon the request
of the enforcement officer, the owner shall
provide the officer with access to all interior
portions of any buildings in order to permit the
officer to make a complete inspection – is that
permissible? Attorney Peterson said what they’re
saying is if they don’t allow it, it is then a
misdemeanor and then would get a search warrant,
since we’re a government entity. Peterson said
usually they ask for permission instead or take
pictures. He said he’d be very comfortable
removing this section. Ulwelling said he
thought this whole section should be removed. He
said he thinks it’s way too much power for a city.
Rainville questioned how would this be enforced if
this section is removed?
It would be handled as a misdemeanor and then a
search warrant would be served. Usually it can be
checked from the street or overhead (aerial) or
with neighbor complaints.
Pilon said it is not a witch hunt, it’s for
nuisances. Ulwelling agrees we shouldn’t be able
to go inside of pole barns. Mahutga agreed with
Ulwelling. Attorney Peterson agreed that this
section should be taken out.
SECTION 8. Order to Cease – no changes or amendments
SECTION 9. Abatement and Costs –
Comment made that there are a lot of vacant or
abandoned building out there at this time with the
economy crisis.
Question was if an additional flat rate cost
should also be charged to the owner of the
property?
Ulwelling stated that if vacant they probably
can’t afford anyway. Attorney Peterson said it
then would be assessed on the owner’s taxes to
recoup. Rainville said this should be an
incentive to owner to keep up and secure.
Attorney Peterson said we are recouping the costs
of the abatement only and he would have to check
if we can add additional cost.
Attorney Peterson said in Ramsey they are ticketed
and the abatement order to clean up or pay, fine
or go to District Court. He is not sure how good
the history has been on collecting the fines.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 6
Rainville said if okay by law she would like to
see us do both charges to recoup whatever costs
the city has in dealing with these properties.
Attorney Peterson said the cost could go to the
home owner by adding an Administration citation.
SECTION 10. Service – No changes or amendments
SECTION 11. Abatement Procedure
Mahutga questioned if the homeowner would first
appear before the Council and then have a
hearing? Attorney Peterson said no there would
be a hearing examiner first and then go to the
Council.
Pilon asked if the resident is not in violation,
what happens then? Attorney Peterson said if the
Hearing Examiner says that the resident is
correct – it then ends here and it doesn’t go to
the City Council.
Pilon asked how it is normally done? Attorney
Peterson said it is split – some contract with a
3rd party or lawyer (Admin. Lawyer) and he takes
testimony from both sides. If the person appeals
it goes to the City Council. Then the decision
is made if the person is right or wrong and it is
final.
The other option is to go straight to the City
Council and do a trial and both sides tell their
testimony. Attorney Peterson said most use this
option – going to City Council because it is more
costly to have an attorney do. Most of these
cases don’t go to hearing and are resolved in a
settlement conference before hand and the cost is
pretty small (take about half of an hour). The
contested cases take up to a day and it would
cost about $200.00 to $1000.00. The other option
going before the City Council usually take
a couple of hours at the most to do.
Rainville asked are the costs included under the
abatement costs? Attorney Peterson said it would
be a filing fee and the cost has not yet been
determined.
Scheffler thought the 3rd party would be good and
that the City should put something in to cover
this cost.
Attorney Peterson said it is the City Council’s
discretion and can do both ways, depending on the
kind of hearing that you expect. The Council
could contract with a third party in one case and
do it as a City Council in the other.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg January 27, 2009 Page 7
Attorney Peterson says he wants to amend the
language to say that the City Council may act as
Hearing Examiner or at their discretion contract
a 3rd party. Scheffler asked if the person can
request the 3rd party then? Attorney Peterson
said if the Council okays, then it is okay to do.
The cost could be paid by a filing fee that is
paid rather they win or lose. If the city finds
that the person was not in violation, however,
then the City would have to pay.
Ulwelling said he felt the City should pay if
proven wrong and Pilon added that the Nuisance
Ordinance should be read properly.
Pilon commented under SECTION 11 there were two