Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 05-20 HCA AGENDA Brooklyn Center Housing Commission May 20, 2003 7 p.m. CounciUCommission Room Brooklyn Center City Hall �I 1. Call to Order: 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes April 15, 2003 5. Chairperson's Report 6. Council Liaison Re ort p D' 7. iscussion: Ordinance Lan a e R ardin Drivewa Pavin g eg g Y g Re uirements. q 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment: 8:30 p.m. CxAxI.ES L. LEFEVE1tE Attomey at Lsw Direct Dial (612) 337-9215 email: clefevere@kennedy-graven.com May 14, 2003 Tom Bublitz City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Re: Ordinance Requiring Paving of Drive-ways Dear Tom: You have asked for a letter describing the options we discussed for an ordinance relating to paving of drive-ways in the City. The City is considering adopting an ordinance requiring drive- ways be paved. A principle issue is identifying a time by which that work must be done. We discussed the following three possibilities: 1. The first possibility is to require that drive-ways be paved by a specified date. The following considerations would apply to this option: It is easy to understand. It is uniform for all properties. It is simple to administer and enforce. It has the disadvantage of requiring that the expense of paving be incurred at a time when funds may not be available to the landawner. This burden can be eased somewhat by specifying a date that is su�"iciently far in the future that people can prepare for it by accumulating the necessary funds. 2. The second possibility we discussed is to require that the drive-way be paved within 12 months after sale of the property. The following factors should be a consideration for this option: A purchaser who is awaxe of this requirement can either withhold funds or reduce the purchase price to pay for the drive-way work. This option is somewhat harder to understand than the first option. I CLL-231609v1 BR291-16 Tom Bublitz May 14, 2003 Page 2 It is not uniform for all properties. In some cases paving would be required in one year while in others, paving may not be required for 40 years or more. It may be difficult for buyers to understand why they should incur the expense of paving drive-ways when their neighbors are not required to do sa It would be difficult for the City to administer and enforce because sta.ffwould not be able to tell whether the ordinance required that a drive-way be paved without checking title records to see whether a sale had occurred within the last year. If the purchaser is not aware of the ordinance, he or she will be in the same position after 12 months as owners of the property are at the current time. That is, they will be faced with having to pay the cost ofpaving the drive-way without having available funds. Therefore, in many cases, the City will simply be putting off the imposition of the hardship or imposing it on a new owner moving into the City. 3. The third option we discussed was to require that owners pave drive-ways by a specified date or execute and record a declaration of covenants acknowledging the obligation to pave the drive-way within one year of the sale of the property and I recording that document with the county. The City should consider the following factors as they relate to this option: i i It is much harder for people to understand. i There will be cases when the ordinance requires one drive-way to be paved in the near future while others may not be paved for 30 or 40 years. It is somewhat easier to administer. After the date specified in the ordinance when landowners must either pave drive-ways or record a document, if City staff find an unpaved drive-way, they can check to determine whether they have a record of a covenant recorded against the property. However, the staff will still not know, unless they check the title records, whether the property has changed hands since the declaration was recorded. This process would involve staff time dealing with people who must execute and record the documents and could involve the expenses of filing fees, legal fees and title work if the City wishes to take the steps necessary to assure that the proper parties are executing and filing the declaration. The primary advantage of this option over option number 2 is that it makes it more likely that buyers will be put on actual notice of the requirement that the property be paved at the time they purchase the property. CLL-231609v1 BR291-16 Tom Bublitz May 14, 2003 Page 3 As we discussed, it would probably be most helpful for the housing commission to discuss these issues and provide further direction to City staff before we prepare the specific language o�' a proposed ordinance amendment. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions on this matter. I Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL: sez CLLr231609v1 BR291-16 MINiJTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN TI� COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND TI� STATE OF MINNESOTA r:�:; JOINT SESSION WITH HOUSING COMNBSSION APRIL, 2, 2003 COUNCIL/COMIVIISSION CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met for a joint session with the Housing Commission and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Bob Peppe. Councilmember Diane Niesen was absent and unexcused. Also present: Assistant City Mana.ger Curt Boganey, Comxnunity Development Director Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, Police Chief Scott Bechthold, Administrative Sergeant Kevin Benner, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Housing Commission Members present: Ernie Erickson, Lloyd Deuel, Mary Barrus, Judy Thorbus, Mark Yelich, and David Johnson. Prosecuting AttorneyBill Clelland arrived at 6:05 p.m. Commissioner Stan Leino arrived at 7; 00 p.m, and Commissioner Kris Lawerence-Anderson arrived at 7:05 p.m. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CIiAPTER 12: RENTAL LICENSE Commission Chair Yelich discussed that the Housing Commission had been working on an ordinance amendmenf regarding rentallicensing for approximately a yeaz and a ha1f. The Housing Commission reviewed similar ordinances adopted by other cities and have incorporated the best ideas for the City of Brooklyn Center's ordinance. He informed that the Council is being asked for direction on the proposed amendments to Chapter 12. Community DevelopmentDirector Brad Hoffinan informed that he had created five major policy questions for the Council to consider. The Council and Housing Commission Members discussed: 1. Should the City of Brooklyn Center establish a"Provisional" rentallicense for rental properties that: �::`�i;: 04IO2/03 -1- a. Fail to meet minimum life, health, and safety requirements of Chapter 12? {Answer was no.) s, b. Generate excessive calls per apartment unit for police and fire service? .u, (Answer was yes.) During this discussion Prosecuting Attorney Bill Clelland advised that he was not in favor of a provisional rentallicense and would prefer that the landlords know there is a deadline. Commissioner Mary Barrus informed that tenant behavior was the main focus when looking at this ordinance. The ordinance currently has nothing in it that assists the Police Department with ca11s for service. Police Chief Scott Bechthold and Administrative Sergeant Kevin Benner discussed the ca11s for service generally received and informed that the proposed ordinance amendment would help in assisting the Police Department. Mayor Kragness questioned if the ordinance should iaiclude something that indicates Apariment Managers need to attend Association of Rental Management (ARl� meetings. Mr. Bechthold discussed maybe that could be an administrative action that if they are not in compliance they need to attend the ARM meetings. Councilmember Peppe questioned if a fee could be created for those who are causing problems. Mr. Clelland discussed the possibility of considering a fee with the inspection or re-inspection process. i He indicated that he would be willing to discuss this issue with City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Mr. Hoffrnan informed that the Council sets fees by resolution and suggested exploring a charge for calls as a different type of fee. Commission Chair Yelich recommended a no retaliation clause be incorpora.ted like the City ofNew Brighton's ordinance. Assistant City Manager Curt Boganey questioned if the Council was in consensus for a provisional license for excessive police and fire ca11s, if fees should be set at a rate to reimburse the City for the cost of helping with the management of apartments, and getting a response from the City Attorneys for codified language to the ordinance. Councilmember Carmody indicated that she would like to see costs to help reimburse the City and that the amount is not impartant. Councilxnember Peppe indicated that he would like to see some type of provisionallicense fee charged for services and questioned the average of ca11s. Mr. Hoffinan indicated that would bring the Council to the next question. 2. How many ca11s for police andlor fire service should be considered excessive on an annual basis? i 04/02/03 -2- a. One call per apartment unit b. Less than one ca11 per apartment unit (Answer was .41.) During this discussion Mr. Hoffinan distributed and discussed a chart for calls of service in 2002 and the breakdown of calls per units during a two-month period. He informed that the average for ca11s is .37 and suggested the Council consider .41 as an amount for excessive calls. Councilmember Peppe informed that he believes that would be a good starting point. Commissioner Leino arrived at 7:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Council to set .41 as the ca11s to be considered excessive on an annual basis. 3. What size apartment complex should be required to comply with this ordinance? a. Four-plex and larger b. Ten apartment units or more c. Other (Answer was five and above.) Coxnmissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson arrived at 7:05. Mayor Kragness questioned Mr. Benner about ten or more units. Mr. Benner responded that ten or more would be reasonable. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to keep it at four. Councilmember Lasman questioned if they still pay before the provisional rental license would kick in. Mr. Hoffinan distributed and discussed Section 12-911 and Cornmunity Development Specialist Tom Bublitz informed that the provisional rentallicense deals with the overall complex. Tt was the consensus of the Council that five and above would need to comply with this ordinance. 4. Should a regular rentallicense term be for one yeaz or two yeazs? (Answer was two years.) Councilmember Carmody informed that since the Police Department can generate monthly reports, two years is fine with her. Coxnmissioner Barrus suggested two-year licenses with the properties looked at once a year. 04/02/03 -3- i Mayor Kragness questioned if the Council would need to make a provisional license decision during the two-year term of a regular license if calls exceed the provisional license threshold. Mr. Boganey informed that the language as written does not clearly specify. Mr. Clelland intbrmed that the ordinance could be amended to include such language. A wy� Itwas the consensus of the Council that the regular rental license term should be for two years. 5. Should the City of Brooklyn Center require apartment owners to conduct criminal background checks on prospective tenants? (Answer was yes.) Councilmember Lasman informed that she believes it is important for criminal background checks and questioned fmancial background checks. Mr. Clelland suggested that the Council limit the background checks to only criminal since fmancial background checks are a burden and hard to receive. It was the consensus of the Council to require apartment owrYers to conduct criminal background checks on prospective tenants. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the changes to be incorporated into the ordinance could be made and when the City Council would have this item on an agenda. Mr. Hoffnian informed that he believes that the changes could be incorporated and that,the item could be on an agenda relatively soon. 3 Council directed staff to prepare a revised draft for review and action by the CounciL Mr. Bechthold and Mr. Benner left the meeting at 7:47 p.m. GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS Councilmember Carmody informed that the Housing Corrunission started reviewing Chapters 19 and 25 of the City Ordinances after reoccurring compliance problems at a property on Brooklyn Boulevard. The proposed amendments request for driveways for single family and two family residential dwellings to be hard surfaced such as concrete, asphalt, brick, or similaz hard surfaces in accordance with the Engineering Department specifications; and to limit no more than two appropriately licensed but inoperable pioneer, classic, or collector vehicles. The Housing Commission is requesting direction from the Council as to the proposed amendments suggested to both ordinances. Council discussed and reviewed pictures that Councilmember Carmody presented. Commissioner Leino discussed the City of Fridley's practice allowing residents to come in compliance with their ordinance within a three yeaz time period. 04/02/03 -4- i Mr. Hoffinan raised the issue of what would happen if an owner were not to comply within the three year time period. It was proposed that owners be required to comply if and when the property was sold or transferred to new ownership. r.....�� Mr. Boganey inforrned that staff would have to reseazch this issue and also look at the pros/cons for adequate notification to the buyers and sellers of properties before making a decision on this issue. Mayor Kragness expressed that was a fair approach. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE After further discussion regarding the proposed amendment to Chapter 19 regarding the no more than two appropriately licensed but inoperable pioneer, classic, or collector �ehicles, it was the consensus of the Council to do nothing with the amendment proposed. Councilmember Peppe requested that the ordinance continues to be reviewed and thought out to change gradually. Mayor Kragness suggested to a11 that they continue to contact Code Enforcement when they see issues to be consistent and have these issues measured fairly. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items discussed. ADJOLrRNMENT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the work session at 8:29 p.m. �1Gll�.�l `�i►tiu`���. `�h City Clerk 1V�ayc r���� 04/02/03 -5-