Loading...
1992-04-28ADril 28, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, Fire Chief Don Bryce, and the following interested citizens: Nancy Nordstrom, Nancy Hoy, Jim Krenik, Phil & Eva Hasch, Marilyn Byrnes, Robert Carlson, Gen Carlson, Dorothy Caster, Mike Mason, Jayne Hetchler, Rich Peterson, Denny Flack, Steve Cooper, Dick Olexa, Jim Bedell, Gene Garvais, Shirley Andersen, Cathy Bailey, Mary Motyka, Carl Alexander, Joanne Champine, Keith Foerster, Jim Kuehn, Dean Hanus, Sandi Effertz, Geoff Michael, Tom Casey, Charles Chase, Mark Hanus, Archie Hanus, Fred Schmudlach, Gene Smith, Gretchen Smith, Greg Knutson, Becky Cherne, Rodney Beystrom, John Gabos, Alan Greene, Brian Asleson, Bill Meyer, Mike Mueller, Richard Indritz, Carole Munson, Larry Hauskins, and Richard Saliterman. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the April 14, 1992, Regular Meeting and the April 21, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK, MAY 4-8, 1992 IN THE CITY OF MOUND Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following proclamation: RESOLUTION #92-41 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK MAY 4-8, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY ATTORNEY'S SUMMARY, PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319) The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has been 55 April 28, 1992 working on this for a number of years. Section 495 relates to Licensing of Rental Housing and Section 319 relates to Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing. The Building Official reviewed the Executive Summary of the two proposed sections. The purpose of the ordinances is to maintain the housing stock in the community and have people live in a habitable home. The Mayor opened the public hearing. JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. stated he feels that rental homes and owner occupied homes will be treated differently if these ordinances are adopted. He thought landlords input should have been incorporated in these ordinances. He did not agree with all items in these ordinances, i.e. paved driveways and snow removal. Councilmember Jensen stated that the City does not want to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. She further stated that the Planning Commission did discuss items that were brought up by landlords at the June 25, 1991, public hearing. There was impasse on some of those items. The City Attorney stated he feels there are some things that need to be addressed before these ordinances are adopted, i.e. how the inspection process will be implemented (providing the time and people to carry out these ordinances), and a fee structure. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the public hearing until the June 23, 1992, Council Meeting, to provide Staff the time to prepare a fee structure and a plan for how the inspection process will be implemented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE NO. 92-005: FRED BCHMUDLACH, 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE, PID ~14-117-24 32 0007. VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval unanimously. The Planning Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-42 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE, PID %14- 117-24 32 0007, P & Z CASE 92-005 56 57 The vote was unanimously in favor. ADril 28, 1992 Motion carried. 1.4 CASE NO. 92-006: PART OF LOT 22, VARI/%NCE - DECK NANCY NORDSTROM, 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARKt PID~ 13-117-24 21 0041t The Building official explained the request. Commission recommended approval on a 5 to 2 vote. The Planning Councilmember Jessen asked if the applicant planned to make a turn around space in the driveway so that people did not have to back onto Three Points Blvd. The applicant answered yes. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DECKS AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID %13-117-24 21 0041, P & Z CASE %92-006 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE NO. 92-007: MARK HANUS, 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK it AVALONt PID %19-117-23 24 0001, VARIANCE - ADDITION The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval unanimously. The Planning Councilmember Smith questioned the first condition granting the variance "contingent upon the removal of the existing nonconforming detached garage by May 28, 1993". He asked that the applicant be asked to enter into an agreement with the City that would guarantee that the garage would be removed or the City could enter the property, remove the garage, and assess the costs to the property owner. The City Attorney suggested the following language change in #1 under the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: " ..... contingent upon the preparation and execution of a recordable agreement that the City can enter the property, remove the existing nonconforming garage and specially assess the costs against the owner if it is not removed by May 28, 1993". The Council agreed to the amendment. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-44 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, 57 April 28, 1992 AVALON, PID #:1.9-1:1.7-23 24 0001, P & v. CASE #92-007, AS AMENDED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Hanus asked to comment on a Staff policy. A permit was issued to a neighbor for reroofing. The structure is nonconforming as far as the side setback and is also encroaching on Mr. Hanus' property. He contacted the Building Dept. and the Building Official's opinion is that it is a personal issue between the two property owners and that he was not going to revoke the permit. The Building Official stated that the carport that is encroaching was done without a permit sometime ago. He further stated that he has notified the neighbor, Mr. Pflug that he will have to remove the encroachment. The City Attorney stated that if a survey was brought to the City showing an encroachment on another's property a permit should not be issued, but this was not the case for Mr. Pflug. Apparently the part Mr. Hanus is speaking about has been re-roofed and this is an after the fact item. The Council at this point cannot establish a policy, it will have to be on a case by case basis. If the Council wishes, they could refer the policy matter to the staff and attorney for review and bring it back. Otherwise it will be between Mr. Hanus and his neighbor. No further action was taken. 1.6 CASE NO. 92-008: CHARLES CHASE, JR., 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24 44 0005. VARIANCE - BOATHOUSE The Building official reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to Section 330:15 to allow construction of a boathouse with the lowest floor 1 foot below the required minimum floor elevation of 933.5 for Lake Minnetonka. Staff recommended denial at the Planning Commission based on the strong wording of the Code. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4 to 3 vote based on the fact that the boat house "use" is other than "habitable" and it is an "accessory use" versus a "principal use". In the City Planner's report a number of communities were surveyed to see what their minimum floor elevations are and they range from 931.5 to 934.0. Mound is currently preparing a new floodplain ordinance and a new shoreland ordinance. The State or Federal governments require one foot of elevation above the 100-year contour. The Minnehaha Watershed District recommends that communities require at least 2 feet above the 100-year contour. The Building official further stated that in his opinion the boat 58 ADril 28, 1992 house is new construction, it is not simply the repair of an existing facility. The contractor stated that when he started to repair the original boathouse, the walls fell in and he proceeded to pour a new slab and put the new blocks up. Since the building is not complete, it is still possible to raise the existing floor one foot to comply with the required 933.5 elevation. By raising the minimum floor elevation above the 100-year flood, we would be providing a measure of flood protection for the structure. One foot seems to be a minimum, but a number of cities and the watershed district recommend two feet which provides an additional measure of protection. Mr. Chase addressed the Council and stated that the same footings are being used and the boathouse is at the same elevation it has been at since it was originally constructed and has been that way for at least the last 28 years. The Watershed District was out and felt it was o.k. He stated that the boathouse has been through two 100-year storms in the last 20 years and there was no water up to or near the structure. Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-45 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO SECTION 330:15, SUBD. 10 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO MINIMUM FLOOR ELEVATION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A BOATHOUSE AT 3048 HIOHLAND BLVD., LOTS 13v 14v 15~ BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS~ PID %23-117-24 44 0005, P & Z CASE %92-008 Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen stated they would have to vote against approval because it does not meet the required elevation requirement. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay. carried. Motion 1.7 CASE NO. 92-009 & 92-010: RICHARD OLEXA, 6607 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 9 & W 1/2 OF LOT 10, HALSTED HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0012. MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCES The Building Official reported for the City Planner explaining that the applicant is proposing to move a property line that was approved previously in a minor subdivision. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote with conditions. The City Attorney pointed out that there is a platted street 59 April 28, 1992 (Halsted Lane) that comes from the west in Halsted View. He questioned whether a street easement is necessary on Mr. Olexa's lots to extend Halsted Lane. The other question was about a water easement that is required by the proposed resolution. The Attorney recommended that this item be referred to the City Engineer and the city Planner for further review. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to table this item to the May 12th meeting after the proper easement or easements are obtained from Mr. 01exa. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 COMMENTS AND SUOGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Nancy Hoy, 2146 Cardinal Lane - stated she would like to see the Council find out what the real cause is as to why people are not getting Building Permits before doubling and tripling permit fees. Also felt landlords should be allowed to comment on the rental housing ordinances. Jim Kuehn, 4633 Island View Drive - stated he would like an improved understanding of the policies and the commitment to help all commons users. He represents Citizens for Commons' Sense and stated they would like to be involved in the decision making processes of the following: "* Commons' Policies Translate commons' policies into simple english. Examine the appropriateness of specific commons' policies, administration and categories. Make changes. * Re-examine the Docks Program To include fee structure, locations, and other concerns. * Commons' Property Tax Reform Promote an equitable property tax system, clearly defining differences between private lakeshore and commons' lakeshore. * Budget Accountability Line item accountability as it relates to commons' programs. * Enhance the public image of the city of Mound." The Council thanked the people who commented and suggested that the Staff and the Council hold another presentation session for the realtors in the area and inform them about commons. They also suggested have the Citizens for Commons' Sense meet with the Staff and Council and discuss their concerns. 60 6]4 April 2g, 1992 Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point Road, Orono - was a resident of Mound for 20 years and is the former Chairman of the Park Commission in the mid 1960's to mid 1970's. He commented on the study that was done on the common's at that time. He explained that the study was precipitated because there were 3 groups of people out there then: 1. Inlanders who wanted to use the commons. 2. Residents abutting the commons who felt they were being encroached upon, particularly their privacy. 3. Residents abutting the commons who were very dissatisfied with what people were doing on the commons, i.e. leaving docks in all year and leaving debris on the commons. He then gave the background of why and how the dock ordinance came about. He explained that he was on the Park Commission when the survey of the commons was done to determine what structures were on the commons. At that time, the structures were grandfathered in but it was not the intention that the structures be allowed to stay indefinitely. Greg Knutson, 4701 Island View Drive - asked who is responsible for the structure on the commons abutting your property. The City Attorney stated that if the structure is there legally, it should have a maintenance permit, otherwise it should not be there, and if it has a maintenance permit it runs with the land so it transfers from one ownership to the next. Keith Foerster, 4645 Island View Drive - feels that the City needs to address all properties with housing maintenance, not just rental housing. Jayne Hetchler, 4913 Island View Drive - hopes that there will be recognition of the different types of commons. 1.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LARRY HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE, WIOTA COMMONS, DOCK SITE #13480 - TRIMMING OF VEGETATION The Park Director explained that this is an after the fact permit. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on an 8 to 1 vote. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-46 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS - LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR TRIMMING OF TREES AND VEGETATION AT WIOTA COMMONS ABUTTING 1749 BLUEBIRD LANEv LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD, DOCK SITE %13480 61 April 28, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 REQUEST FROM MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION TO INCREASE MONTHLY PENSION BENEFIT The City Manager explained that the Mound Fire Dept. Relief Association has had an actuarial study done on their pension fund. They are now requesting a $25.00 increase in their pension benefits. This would be a raise from $395.00 per month to $425.00 per month. He further indicated that the present level of contribution from the State, fire contract cities and pension fund investments will cover the proposed increase. Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELIEF ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO INCREASE PENSION BENEFITS AS REQUESTED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING (BOATHOUSE) ON PUBLIC LANDS (DEVON COMMONS), 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON The Building Official reviewed his report on the dilapidated boat house. The Staff recommends the following: OPTION #1 - The City Council direct staff and the City Attorney to proceed with removal of the boathouse due to its unsafe condition on public land. OR OPTION #2 - Allow the applicant continued use of the boathouse until the expiration of the current maintenance permit on December 10, 1994, upon the condition that the structure be restored to a safe condition by the applicant. The applicant shall submit a detailed list of corrections that address the concerns as listed by the Building Official in his report. Carole Munson was present and stated she feels comfortable with the boathouse as is. She requested that the Council stand by their decision on December 10, 1991, and honor the 3 year maintenance permit that was issued. The Council discussed the boathouse; the maintenance permit; what repairs to allow, if any; and the removal of the boathouse at the end of the maintenance permit period. The question is whether or not to repair the boathouse. The Building Official recommended that the applicant get a qualified person to review the building. The applicant stated she did intend to do some minimal things to the building, but no major 62 ADril 28, 1992 improvements. The Council explained that the maintenance permit was to allow use to the extent of the useful life of the structure. The city Attorney gave the following analogy: 1. The building Official has recommended removal on the basis of, it is his opinion that the building is hazardous. The Council is saying no, we've given a permit and we're going to live with that permit for the balance of the three year period. The Council is also asking the Building Official what needs to be done to the building to make it safe. The Building official is saying here are some things he can think of off the top of his head but essentially he does not want to be responsible to redesign her building. The City Attorney suggested that the Council defer action on this item for 2 weeks and let the Building Official work with the applicant and whoever her representative is to do what the Council is basically saying, i.e. do the minimal work to protect the health, safety and welfare of anybody who may be in or around that building for the 3 year period. At that time, it should come back, and an agreement be drawn between the City and Ms. Munson that: 1. There be insurance to protect she and the City. 2. It should contain language which would require its removal at the end of the permit period, at her expense. Another question that needs to be addressed is: Does the City want to require people to record these permit documents on their title, which is the only way persons buying the property would have official notice? MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to table this item until the June 9th Meeting, in order to give Ms. Munson time to have a building contractor look at the building and meet with the Building Official to do the minimum to make the building safe. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 REQUEST FROM RICHARD INDRITZ, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS Mr. Richard Indritz, Attorney for Ms. Munson, addressed the Council asking for reconsideration of the Council's decision of December 10, 1991, requiring the removal of the deck that was built last year. Her contention is the same as it was back in December, the construction of this deck was just maintenance of an existing structure. He suggested that other people have been given after 63 April 28, 1992 the fact permits for decks on commons, i.e. the Konnads. Ms. Munson showed an overhead of the Commons with the deck, boathouse, stairway and playhouse. She stated she will need a walkway between the two sets of steps and therefore will need the deck to attach these steps to. There was discussion on other alternatives: 1. Landscaping, terracing and leaving the area open. 2. Steps can be built without having a deck to attach it to. Tom Casey, Park & Open Space Commission, stated that the scenic value of the property has been diminished because something is built on it. There is habitat that is being compromised because trees and shrubs are not there. Erosion control may be another item that has not been addressed. Bill Meyer, Planning Commission stated: Since it is an accessory building and is not on her property don't the same rules have to be followed as someone would if building an accessory building on their own property, i.e. setbacks, etc. He did not know when the City ever allowed an accessory building to be built without meeting the setbacks, etc. Mike Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road stated: That the structures were there before the applicant owned the property. If they are on City property the City should maintain them or pay to remove the structures. The Council reminded Mr. Mueller that the issue is the deck not the structures. The deck was added by the applicant since she purchased the property. MOTION made by &hrens, seconded by Smith to amend the motion approved On December 10, 1991, to include the deck as part of the 3 year Maintenance Permit, thus deleting the portion of the motion which required that the deck be removed within 6 months of the date of that Meeting or June 10, 1992. The Council clarified that the permit given to Sandra Konnad was for Construction of Public lands, after the fact, not a Maintenance Permit. The vote was Z in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion fails. Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO 64 ADril 28, 1992 CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDIN~ TO CODE. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Building Official asked that the applicant submit a sketch plan of how the two stairways will be connected and a permit will be issued. 1.13 RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION - STATES SALES TAX APPLICATION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES The City Manager explained that the Legislature has approved the application of the State's 6.5% sales tax to local government purchases. This was passed in lieu of the cuts in Local Government Aid. This will mean the City must cover approximately $12,000- $15,000 in sales tax for the remainder of this year. The City Manager has proposed the following personnel changes within the Police Department and the Parks Department to cover the amount: 1. Retirement of Sergeant Brad Roy, effective July 1, 1992, with realize a savings of $9,000. 2. Retirement of Bob Johnson and not replacing his position will realize a savings of $4,000. Councilmember Ahrens disagreed with the proposal by not replacing the position in the Parks Dept. The Council discussed maintaining the Park services at the present level and not replacing Mr. Johnson. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-49 RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECQMMENDATION TO COVER STATE'S SALES TAX APPLICATION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. 1.14 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The City Clerk explained the proposed ordinance amendments. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #56-1992 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 800:10, SUBD. 6 & 7; SECTION 800:25; SECTION #810:10, SUBD. 2, (c); SECTION 810:25; AND REPEALING SECTION 810:30, SUBD. 4 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSING 65 April 28, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 APPROVAL OF LICENSES The City Clerk presented the following licenses for approval all conditioned upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Fish Fry - June 13, 1992 Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee Mound City Days - June 19, 20, & 21, 1992 - all fees waived Carnival Entertainment Concessions Fireworks Craft Fair Merchant Sales Parade Public Gathering Northwest Tonka Lions - Mound City Days - June 20 & 21, 1992 Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit 2 locations as follows: 1. June 20 & 21, 1992 - Pond Arena 2. June 21, 1992 - Mound Bay Park Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee Our Lady of the Lake Church - July 25 & 26, 1992 - Incredible Festival Temporary On-Sal~ Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Public Dance Permit Temporary Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee Mohawk Ja¥cees Fundraiser - May 1, 1992 - American Leqion Public Dance Permit - Waive Fee MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance of the above licenses as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-50 RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1~ PAYMENT OF BILLS April 28, 1992 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-llst in the amount of $189433.12, when funds are available. A roll ¢all vote was unanimously in favor. Motion oarried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. March 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Be C. D. E. LMCD mailings. Information from Hennepin Parks on Redistricting. REMINDER: Annual Parks Tour - Thursday, May 21, 1992. LMC Annual Bloomington. attending. Conference is scheduled for June 9-12, Contact Fran if you are interested in 1992, Park Minutes of April 9, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 1992. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 12:30 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~qa~d J. S~kIe, Jr., city Manager AtteSt: city ~lerk 67 BILLS- .April 28, 1992 BATCH 2042 $ 189,433.12 TOTAL BILLS $ 189,433.12