Working Session

Mayor and City Council Work Session
October 25, 2005 – 5:00 p.m.
A101

Council Members Present: Doug Christensen(joined meeting in progress), Hal Gershman, Eliot Glassheim, Gerald Hamerlik, Curt Kreun(joined meeting in progress).
Council Members Absent: Bob Brooks, Dorette Kerian.
Others Present: Richard Duquette, Howard Swanson, John Packett, Bev Collings, Brad Gengler, Chuck Durrenberger, Al Grasser, Pete Haga, Todd Feland, Roxanne Fiala, Pete O’Neill, 26 citizens.

Gershman called the meeting to order at 12:09 p.m.

1) Neighborhood Concerns Committee Overview/Background.

Hamerlik stated that this issue came about as a result of a petition that was turned in with 200-250 signatures asking planning & zoning for changes in the area. The matter was delegated to a committee for study. The committee was made up of members from the City Council, tenants, students and permanent residents and met from September to year end. At that time recommendations were made to the City Council. City Council appointed a committee to continue meeting and work on ordinances to implement the recommendations. Council Members Kreun, Kerian, and Hamerlik have been on this committee which has been meeting since February at least once a week to work with staff and community members on developing these ordinances. The draft ordinances have been presented at a Committee of the Whole meeting and referred back to the Committee and staff for some final tweaking and are now bringing them here for discussion prior to returning the recommendation to the Committee of the Whole.

(Christensen joins meeting.)

Duquette commented that as part of the staff work on this issue Swanson contacted other communities and is here tonight to share what he found, which includes that all of the communities contacted have addressed the same issues that we are dealing with and that some have even gone so far as to hire a consultant to try and find solutions for resolving it. He continued that they all have the same ordinances on the books that we already have, with the exception of the ones that are being proposed which deal with parking, unrelated parties, and rental licenses. Christensen inquired as to if there was a proposed ordinance to deal with loud parties and whether the sample ordinances that he had forwarded from Bemidji had been used at all. Swanson stated that we currently have on record ordinances that would allow the police to respond to and disburse a loud party. He added that there is one difference between our current ordinance and Bemidji’s in that Bemidji’s does not list specific times such as after 10:00 p.m. where ours does.

(Kreun joins the meeting.)

Swanson continued that ours already allows responding police officers to take down names of all attendees at the party, names of residents of the property, and to dispel the party. Christensen stated that then he is in favor of seeing us enforce those ordinances that we already have on the books before passing more.


2) Ordinances.


Swanson stated that in reviewing the information he received he made a list of about 20 complaints/concerns and in working with staff they brainstormed for potential solutions. In addition, he stated that he researched this issue by contacting 7 similar university towns (including Fargo, Moorhead, Duluth, St. Cloud, Euclaire, and LaCrosse) as well as 2 national attorneys associations and the result was that all the communities had the same issues that we are dealing with, none had had found a way to solve them. He continued that the number one concern was enforcement of alcohol and loud party matters and all the communities have on their books the same ordinances that we have, plus the ones that staff has proposed for discussion today.

Swanson began the review with the ordinance related to front yard parking and stated that the proposed ordinance is similar to the one used in some of the other communities. He continued that neighborhood permit systems had been discussed, but that the communities that had tried that found that they made it worse for the permanent residents with little impact on the actual problem. He stated that the penalty stated for violation of this ordinance is listed in the draft as $50 with maximum to $100, but that could be changed at the discretion of the Council.

Swanson stated that the second proposed ordinance deals with the 40% rule for paved front yards and the combination of these two ordinances would allow for tickets and enforcement by the police department.

Gershman inquired if the consensus was that the parking ordinances would help, then maybe those should go forward at this time and then see how it goes before look at other changes which may be more difficult to implement.

Swanson reviewed the list of concerns that he noted in his research and potential solutions that were proposed by affected parties. The group discussed comments on these including that some seemed to be contradictory, but from a different perspective really weren’t and that some feel the rentals are using up affordable housing stock. Glassheim commented that the issue is not just about the ordinances, but also if housing stock is being affected, then need to discuss and if now is not the right time, then need to have on a future agenda. Christensen commented that he believes the only way to return to housing stock is to rezone to R1. The group discussed potential impacts that rezoning could have and agreed that this could be discussed at a later meeting.

In regards to the first proposed ordinance, Hamerlik inquired what is different form the one that the committee proposed. Swanson stated that by incorporating this into Chapter 8, it allows the police department to be the enforcing arm and issue tickets, whereas in Chapter 18 they could not. Hamerlik also commented that he questions whether “vehicle” will cover all of the items that are current problems, such as boats. Swanson read the description of vehicle as listed in the code and stated that if the boat were on a trailer, then it would fall under the definition.

Duquette commented that the staff had discussed at length on including the side yard as well as front yard and concern is that many throughout town may put boat, etc. alongside garage for winter and that in middle of a block may not even be noticeable, and there may be many affected by this inclusion. Hamerlik stated that on corners would be noticeable though. Collings responded that on a corner lot there is actually two front yards so that would not be a concern.

The group discussed the 40% rule from the second proposed ordinance and that it was actually put in place prior and is not a change at this time and that the change in this ordinance adds the UD zoned area to fall under this guideline, that all areas in the front yard that are used for parking must be hard surfaced, and that for single family rental units one off-street parking space must be provided for each bedroom in the unit. Christensen stated that he had a concern with the fact that we pass this ordinance and it increases the cost to the landlord substantially if they currently do not have any hard surface off-street parking. Duquette stated that if this ordinance is passed they would be expected to provide paved parking spaces for their properties. Glassheim inquired how driveways would factor in. Collings responded that those are already covered in existing code and do count into the 40% rule. The group discussed pros and cons of the parking ordinances. It was noted that even if the parking spaces are provided by the landlord, there is no way to enforce that the tenant will use the parking space and then still the same problem.

The group discussed the potential to limit the ordinances to perhaps only UD zoned property, but it was noted that many of the complaint areas are outside the UD zoned area. Christensen stated that would propose using street boundaries to define the area near the University and then the entire city would not be affected.

Gershman encouraged the group to come to consensus on at least some of the areas up for discussion so that this matter can move on to COW and Council for final resolution. Kreun stated that all of the discussion here today has generated no new comments, but rather restatements of what has already been known. He continued that while this issue came about due to problems in the UND area, there are other areas of town that suffer from the same problems and we should have a city-wide policy so all get equal relief and treatment.

The group came to the following consensus: The term side yard should remain in the ordinance. Proposed fines in the first ordinance of $50 and $75 for violation are appropriate. Gengler pointed out a couple of minor technical corrections that Swanson will make.

Swanson stated that the second proposed ordinance on section 18-0302 needs to be adopted so that the requirements from the first ordinance can be enforced. He stated that he will be redrafting the first part slightly to separate out the zones.

Christensen inquired on page 2, section 14B12 dealing with one parking space per bedroom and how that would be enforced. Collings responded that they could enforce at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy and also would be included in the rental licensing ordinance, if that is passed.

The group discussed concerns that some of the current properties may not have enough space on their lot to install the paved parking and how that would be handled. Glassheim inquired if there could be some kind of variance given in that situation. Swanson responded that he would have to research, as the requirements for a variance need to be more than not enough space on the lot.

Swanson stated that this section could be left out of the ordinance for now if Council wishes to have more discussion or research in this area, but the remaining changes in the ordinance, in particular section 5A, needs to be adopted now to allow for the enforcement of the items in the first ordinance.

Grant Shaft, rental owner, commented that he can think of several properties that he has right now that do not provide any off-street parking at this time and would have no room on the lot to even put in a driveway, let alone actual parking spaces. Glassheim commented that a solution should be researched for those properties prior to this section being passed. Kreun commented that he feels that perhaps we should look into a type of variance that could be applied for and reviewed on a case by case basis for those affected properties.

An audience member commented that she also feels it may be unreasonable for some of her properties, as if it’s a five bedroom house rented to a family may not need to have five parking spaces as that would be unreasonable. Gershman stated that the proposed rule is very easy to enforce and is a good control if we can just find some wording for a variance that won’t be unreasonable. Swanson stated that could also be addressed in the definition of a family that is in the next ordinance for consideration. He added that the important thing to remember is that variances can not be granted on a whim and there needs to be a guideline set and then stick to it.

The group discussed wording a variance so that Inspections would be able to review and act on it. Hamerlik inquired if the variance possibility could be worded to only include properties that are currently rentals, and specifically, so that it would not pertain to any future conversions. Swanson stated that it could not and needed to be uniform to qualify as a variance. Christensen stated that he still feels that rezoning back to an R1 in this area would solve some of these concerns.

Gershman called for consensus on the one space per bedroom section. Christensen commented that he could be in favor, but would still want to consider the rezoning at a later meeting. Swanson stated that even in for a single family rental in an R1, with the proposed ordinance you could not have a rental that did not have off-street parking. He stated that since any existing rentals would then be a nonconforming use, there would be strict limits on the kind of repairs that would be allowed and gave examples of some.

3) Other Discussion.


4) Adjourn.

Gershman stated that since it is already 1:20 p.m. should adjourn for today and this discussion will reconvene on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. and that given the number of interested parties that typically attend for this topic that the meeting should be moved to the Council Chambers and maybe use the grey tables instead of the raised Council seats so as to provide for more open discussion. He added that if there is a need there will also be a meeting on Thursday, November 3 at Noon for continued discussion.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sherie Lundmark
Admin Specialist Sr.