11-19-1985 PCM cMINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
November 19, 1985
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Roland Ebent at 7:30 p.m. with
the following members present: Marlin Torgerson, Elsa Young, Don
Erickson, Larry Romo, Thomas Lyke, Shu -Mei Hwang and Chairman Ebent.
Members absent: None. Also present: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz,
Director of Engineering Marlow Priebe, Building Official Homer Pittman,
Assistant Building Official James Marka, Fire Marshal George Field, Fire
Chief Orlin Henke and City Attorney James Schaefer.
2. MINUTES
Mr. Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
dated Tuesday, October 15, 1985, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the
motion carried unanimously.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL HOUSING CODE ORDINANCE
Chairman Ebent opened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. with the reading of
publication #3482, as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday,
November 7, 1985. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a rental
dwelling registration code ordinance as proposed by City staff.
City Administrator Plotz stated that this public hearing was not
required but voluntary on the part of the Planning Commission with
the sincere intent of getting public input. He explained that this
proposal had been in process for two or three years, and that staff
had researched what other communities the size of Hutchinson had been
doing. The proposed ordinance is a direct result of that research.
City Administrator Plotz continued by responding to concerns that had
been raised since the public had been made aware of the proposal. In
response to a comment that the purpose of the proposal was to raise
revenue for the City, he stated that this was a user -based ordinance,
much like a building permit. Some fees had been established, but at
this point, those fees could be looked at and reviewed. In response
to a comment that this was a prelude to some type of rent control,
Administrator Plotz stated that it was not. He didn't think there
was any type of rent control in the State of Minnesota. In response
to a comment made that this proposal was an attempt to get more
staff, Administrator Plotz stated that the Building Department felt
that they could carry out the registration and inspection process
without adding any staff.
Fire Marshal George Field made a presentation regarding the
ordinance. He reviewed the basic requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, giving examples of types of nonconformance and
remedies to those hazards. He stated that the main objective of the
staff in making this proposal is to provide a tool that will enable
them to apply the code among all the owners of property as well as
safely protect the renters. At this time, the building department
can only act on complaints, and are receiving 50-60 complaints per
year. He noted the biggest problem from a safety standpoint is when
a homeowner converts a single-family dwelling into rental units
without the necessary building permit. They may not be aware of the
safety standards and the city staff has no way of knowing they are in
violation. The result is a often a substandard unit, in terms of
safety features. Fire Marshal Field sited egress windows in basement
bedrooms as being one of the most common and dangerous of the
violations.
Building Official Pittman explained the basis for the fee schedule
that has been established, comparing it to the one in Northfield,
Minnesota. He stated that at this point, it was entirely
negotiable. He also explained the procedure they follow when they
receive a complaint, noting that a reasonable time frame is
established for the property owner to correct a violation. If the
situation is life threatening, the renter is advised not to remain in
the unit until it is corrected. The renter then makes—iis own
decision.
Sondra Slyter, 565 Peterson Circle, landlord, asked why the ordinance
discriminates against the non -homesteaded property.
Fire Marshal Field responded that "non -homestead" should not be
on the form and that the proposal is for all rental housing.
Ms. Slyter asked why single-family, owner -occupied homes -are not
going to be inspected.
Fire Marshal Field responded that there are seldom complaints against
owner -occupied single-family homes. He added that renters don't have
the opportunity to make changes. He also stated that in some cases,
people who want to buy a home have contacted the City and the home
was inspected before they bought it. New construction meets the
codes.
Mr. Richard Peterson, Valley View Apartments, why displeased renters
can't just move out.
Fire Marshal Field responded that they have that option; however,
their choices are very limited. When faced with an unsafe situation
or not having a place to live, they most often choose the unsafe
situation. He added that many renters aren't aware of the hazards.
Mr. Wayne Kenning, 705 Milwaukee Ave., stated that there are, at
present, 45 rental units advertised in the local paper, and that he
doesn't believe there is a shortage of rental units.
Mr. Peterson asked how many of the complaints pertain to multiple
units.
2
Fire Marhsal Field responded that the majority of the calls are on
duplexes.
Mr. James McClure, 1301 Campbell Lane asked what the most common
violation is.
Fire Marshal Field responded that egress windows is one of the most
common.
Mr. Marlin Torgerson asked Mr. Field to go through the procedure
they follow upon receiving a complaint.
Mr. Field explained that upon receiving a complaint, they first
discuss the problem with the property owner. Many times, the
problem can be corrected in a couple of hours (smoke detector, for
example). If the situation is life threatening, a letter sent to
the property owner will say that the person should not occupy the
facility. Then a realistic time frame for the owner to comply is
determined. Often it is 30 days - the situation really dictates how
long is given.
Mr. Torgerson asked if the unit is reinspected.
Mr. Field responded that it is. He further stated they have
sited people for noncompliance. Any violation is a misdemeanor.
It 's up to the judge to decide - up to $700 or 90 days in jail.
That seldom happens. Most people comply.
Mr. Jim Marka, Assistant Building Official, stated that one of the
problems is homeowners moving students into their basements.
Another is poor mobile homes. He stated that they have no control
over these situations unless they receive a complaint. He further
stressed that all that is required is the minimum safety standards.
Ms. Slyter stated that she thought the city should go from one end
of town all the way through -- that the same problems exist in some
private homes.
Mr. Pittman responded that there is nothing they can do about
single-family owner occupied homes, unless the problem is visibly
objectionable or unless they receive a complaint.
City Attorney Schaefer further explained that the difference lies
in the fact that the property owner who chooses to rent is now
offering a space to the public, making the operation a business,
over which the State has the right and duty to regulate.
Mr. Romo stated that the purpose of the hearing is not to determine
whether or not we are going to enforce safety, but simply how it is
going to be enforced.
Ms. Gloria Dansereau, 414 Larson St., homeowner and landlord, asked
how the City will prevent others from remodeling their homes
without building permits. She further asked how the City will
find violators and how will they get the new ones to register.
3
Fire Marshal Field stated that registering would be the responsibility
of the property owner. A notice requiring the registration would be
provided once a year.
Mr. Frank Fay, 970 Rolling Greens Lane, homeowner and landlord,
asked how many of the complaints cannot be resolved without
this rental registration? He also asked how many are servious, life-
threatening types of problems as opposed to complaints about plumbing
problems. He then asked how many fires have been directly caused by
these problems.
Mr. Marka responded that half of the complaints involve a life-
threatening violation. Usually there are many things found, upon
inspection.
Fire Chief Orlin (Butch) Henke responded that since he has been
Fire Chief, there have been at least 3, and probably 5 (fires caused
by these problems) in residential rental property.
Mr. Fay asked how much government we can afford in the City of
Hutchinson. He further stated that he had no complaint with what
the City stands to do, but that we have to look at the costs
involved - to the property owner, the renter and the City.
He stated that there would be additional cost to the City, noting
Northfield's intent to raise their fees after having an ordinance for
only a short time.
Mr. Fay asked if most of the problems are in a minority of apartments
in Hutchinson. He said that in the time that he has been in
Hutchinson, the housing and quality of living standards are much
improved. For the investor, he continued, non -homestead taxes have
tripled and insurance costs have gone even higher. In Hutchinson a
landlord cannot get the high rents. There is negative cash flow
property - many just break even. He stated that when talking about
resale, we are talking about losses of thousands of dollars. Main
Street properties have been hit with off-street parking expenses as
high as $20,000 (in his own case). He noted the cost of sprinkler
systems. (With these costs) Mr. Fay continued, everybody on Main
Street will be forced out.
Mr. Fay added that except for July through September, there is not a
great demand for rental property. Renters have the right to move.
Mr. Fay stated that he is against rental registration, based on the
cost, and that he can't afford much more government.
Mr. Peterson stated that he is against this proposed ordinance.
Based on the figures given, he has determined that with complaints
at about the same rate, most problems should be corrected in two to
three years.
Fire Marshal Field responded that irregardless of the violations that
have been corrected, they are still receiving 50 - 60 complaints per
year. He further stated, that if these rental units comply with the
standards as they are supposed to, the expense should not be so
►0
great.
Mr. Peterson stated that he represents McGannon and has sent a
letter to them advising them to sell or lock up the apartments and
leave them empty.
Mr. John Tapio, 635 Glen St. S., landlord, stated that in this last
year costs have almost doubled. He stated that even though the fee
may be proposed as $10 now, next year it may be increased to $100.
Discussion followed regarding particular requirements of the code
and expense involved in correcting violations - especially, the
size of egress windows, the cost of fire doors, the problem of
separation (walls and doors), etc.
Mr. Mike Maiers, 324 Boulder, stated his opposition to the proposed
ordinance. He asked if the City has the right to inspect property
after receiving a complaint, without the proposed Ordinance.
Building Official Pittman responded that they do.
Mr. Maiers then asked why the Ordinance is necessary.
City Attorney Schaefer commented that many tenants don't know
what the standards are.
Judy Kopesky, 430 Shady Ridge Road, landlord, suggested that if the
problem is with vocational students that are renting, they should
be educated. She also asked that if there are problems discovered
in a building, can it still be rented. She also stated her
opposition to the ordinance. She stated that the insurance company
inspects each apartment and if it satisfies the insurance agent, it
should certainly be up to code. She also stated that if the City is
going to come in to inspect, the property owner should be notified and
should be there during the inspection. She further stated that if
this ordinance is necessary, there should be no fee at all.
City Attorney Schaefer commented that this proposed ordinance does
not require anything that is not already required by State law, but
it serves to provide a way to determine that the landlord is
already providing what the law says he should provide.
Meg Mielke, Student Personnel Specialist at the Hutchinson
Vocational -Techinical Institute, stated that it is her job to
maintain housing for the Vo -tech students, and that she has not had
any complaints from students regarding safety concerns. She
further stated that we should make a point to educate the students
about what should be provided in terms of safe housing.
Bob Stearns, 375 1st Ave. NW, Mayor, stated that he understands
staff's interest in this subject as they are charged with enforcing
State and City laws and it is their responsibility. He stated that
this is an idea to work towards alleviating some of these problems.
He noted that he doesn't want government prying into private lives
any more than they already do. He then stated his opposition to the
5
proposed ordinance, but added that we have to understand staff's
problem. He stated that there are some students living in unsafe
conditions and asked if we we have to wait for a fire to kill a
couple of people (before something is done). Mayor Stearns then
stated that this ordinance may not be the way to go, but there might
be something else we can do. He asked the audience if they could
come up with some other ideas.
Larry Wendorff, Rt. 3, landlord, stated that he does not want to see
government meddling in our investments. Taxes are going to
continue to go up with the farm situation the way it is. He stated
that if the costs get any worse, he is going to get rid of
everything, and he doesn't think this is what we want to happen.
City Attorney Schaefer noted that this is not just to protect
renters, but also landlords. Landlords should be thinking about
making improvements to bring their units into compliance even if
the ordinance is not adopted.
Jim McClure asked about what happens when the uniform building code
changes. He asked if windows put in according to code in 1980 will
be in compliance if the code in 1985 requires larger windows.
After discussion, it was the consensus of staff that they would be
"grandfathered in" if they complied when the structure was built.
Marvin Wil lhite commented that if the City can already inspect, the
ordinance should not be necessary.
Director Priebe stated that the ordinance would provide a method of
getting a handle on the rental units in the City so records can be
maintained.
Mr. McClure stated that he thought a list of the most basic
requirements should be provided, so that people can understand what
is required.
John Tapio asked why a 7 -unit building was going to be inspected more
than once. He also stated his opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Ron Horswell, Rt. 3, stated that other communities may have rental
registration, but the real estate taxes are lower there and they can
generate higher rental incomes. He stated this ordinance would force
people to sell.
COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Marlin Torgerson stated that he is not completely satisfied with
this method. He stated he would like to more input, that he is
against more government, and that he doesn't know how the City can
enforce the ordinance. He further stated that he is not satisfied
with this (proposed ordinance) right now, but that he can
understand why staff feels a need for it.
Elsa Young stated that she felt the idea of informing the Vo -Tech
students, as they are probably the most endangered, is an excellent
idea. She added that it might be better to try other suggestions
before we try to levy some of these rules. She noted that you can do
a lot more with a little positive persuasion than by laying down more
rules and regulations.
Don Erickson stated that he appreciated the input. Noting the
figures of 1100 rental units - 775 (new construction), he stated
that we're basically down to 350 possible ones - with 60 complaints
and 30 of those life threatening. He would like more information
and input on how to correct those problems. He is in favor of
educating the renters and the landowners, as well as the Vo -Tech
students, stating that it would be the best return on our investment.
Larry Romo stated that he cannot support the ordinance as it is
proposed. He feels that it is a big jump - from nothing to
everything. He would prefer to take it in steps, with education -
possibly public notice of penalties. He further stated that it
would cause too much of an economic problem to too many people.
Thomas Lyke stated that he would like to see the educational effect
on the Vo -Tech. He suggested that we see if the life -safety
complaints diminish over a year, as that seems to be the biggest
issue.
Shu -Mei Hwang asked if the City passed the proposed Ordinance,
would the City assume more liability. City Attorney Schaefer
responded that the only way the City would be liable would be if
they inspected a property, found a violation, but issued the
certificate anyway.
Mr. Hwang questioned the need for the ordinance. He stated he
thinks we should look at the protection of the tenants. He
recommends that the City provide a service through the Hutchinson
Leader or the Vo Tech, letting people know that they can ask the
city inspect if they suspect a problem. There could still be a
registration just to know where apartments are.
Chairman Roland Ebent stated that he is basically in agreement with
the concept, but that not the method in which it is being obtained.
He noted that the Planning Commission had asked staff to look into
this and they have been working on it for some time. He noted that
public sentiment seems to be that it isn't wanted or needed. He
suggested that when a property is conveyed an inspection might be
done, and when a person buys property, the purchaser should be told
of what needs to be done to bring it up to safety standards.
Judy Kopesky suggested that something be put in the rental column of
the newspaper to let renters know what is available to them, and
added that the Chamber of Commerce may want to put out a packet of
educational materials regarding this subject.
It was also suggested that real estate people become informed and
7
pass the information on to their clients.
Mr. Romo made a motion to close the hearing. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Young. Mr. Erickson commented that he thinks
education is the direction we should take. The motion carried
unanimously and the hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.
Mr. Torgerson made a motion to ask staff to come back with some
other ideas based on what was heard from the public. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Young. Mr. Romo commented that the new
proposal should be given the same publicity by way of a public
notice so people will be aware of it. The motion carried
unanimously.
Recess: Chairman Ebent called for a 5 minute recess.
(b) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING AS SUBMITTED BY LARRY WENDORFF
Chairman Ebent opened the hearing at 9:30 p.m. with the reading of
publication #3481 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on
Thursday, November 7, 1985. The request is to rezone property
located at 771-775 Dale Street from R-2 to R-3 to allow a 4-plex
on the property.
City Attorney Schaefer stated that there are restrictive covenants
on this property as recorded with the McLeod County Recorder.
Among the convenants it is stipulated there there shall be nothing
other than single-family dwellings in the Southview Subdivision.
He further stated that the covenants did not affect the rezoning
that was requested. If someone who owns property in the Southview
Subdivision objects to the use, he/she would have to pursue the
matter privately. Continuing to use the property as something
other than a single-family dwelling would be at Mr. Wendorff's own
risk.
Chairman Ebent asked if all the property owners in the Southview
Subdivision should be notified of the rezoning request. City
Attorney Schaefer responded that it would not be a legal
requirement.
Director Priebe stated that there has been a duplex on that
property since at least 1967.
Mr. Wendorff stated that he had it made into a 4-plex in 1978,
unaware of the covenants or the zoning requirement. He's asking
for the rezoning so that he can put in off-street parking and
continue operating it as a 4-plex. He intends to make all the
necessary changes as required by the Building Official. He spoke
to the neighboring property owners and they have no objection.
Mr. Hwang asked if business and professional offices could go there
if rezoned. City Attorney Schaefer responded that anything that is
allowed in an R-3 would be permitted once it is rezoned, noting
that most things not already allowed in an R-2 require a
conditional use permit.
0
(c)
(d)
After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing.
Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously and the
hearing was closed at 9:42 p.m. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to
recommend to City Council approval to rezone to R-3 as requested.
Seconded by Mr. Romo, the motion carried, with Mr. Hwang and Mr.
Erickson voting "no".
CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY PURE
CULTURE PRODUCTS
Chairman Ebent opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. with the
reading of publication # 3486 as published in the Hutchinson Leader
on Thursday, November 7, 1985. The request is for a conditional
use permit to allow the the installation of an 8" fire water main
with two fire hose stations, deluge rail car system and deluge
fermentor system, new rail car unloading bed with catch basin and
sump, new tank truck unloading slab with safety stations and
compressor house and new 8' chain link fence to enclose and protect
new property and equipment.
Building Official Pittman explained that the conditional use permit
is necessary because it is located in an IC -1 zone. The new
installations will be in the recently vacated street area.
Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded
by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was
closed at 9:46 p.m. Mr. Romo made a motion to recommend to City
Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested.
Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF "HELLAND'S SEVENTH
ADDITION" AS SUBMITTED BY TYRONE HELLAND
Chairman Ebent opened the public hearing with the reading of
publication #3485 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on
Thursday, November 7, 1985. The request is for approval of a
preliminary and final plat to be known as "Helland's Seventh
Addition."
Mr. Jeff Hart, 707 Shady Ridge Road, had some concerns about the
map that he received on his notice. (It was determined the map was
correct.) Mr. Charles Becker, 705 Shady Ridge Road was also
present to ask about how the plat is zoned and what type of
construction is allowed. Director Preibe responded that a portion
is R-1 and another portion is R-2. Construction must meet
ordinance requirements, noting we cannot discriminate against
manufactured homes if they meet the requirements. Director Priebe
also explained that this is part of an overall plan that had been
approved earlier. He also submitted his engineer's report
regarding subdivision agreement, improvements and parks and
playground contribution.
Mr. Hwang made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr.
Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was
9
closed at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to
City Council approval of the plat as presented. Seconded by Mr.
Hwang, the motion carried unanimously.
(e) CONSDIERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 4466
Chairman Ebent opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m., with the
reading of publication #3483 as published in the Hutchinson Leader
on Thursday, November 7, 1985. The amendments are part of an
overall review done by the Planning Commission over the past
several months.
Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded
by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was
closed at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Romo made a motion to recommend to City
Council approval of the amendments as proposed. Seconded by Mr.
Hwang, the motion carried unanimously.
(f) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE #464, SECTION 6.09
Chairman Ebent opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. with the
reading of publication #3484 as published in the Hutchinson Leader
on Thursday, November 7, 1985. The proposed amendment deletes the
fee schedule from the ordinance and allows the City Council to
change the fees by resolution rather than by amending the ordinance
each time a fee is changed.
Mr. Romo made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr.
Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was
closed at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Hwang made a motion to recommend to City
Council approval of the amendment as proposed. Seconded by Mr.
Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously.
4. OLD BUSINESS
None.
5. NEW BUSINESS
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
10