Loading...
1992-07-28July 28, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 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, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and the following interested citizens: Julie & Mark Lilledahl, Kathleen Okins, Sue Skilling, Kim & Michele Elifrits, John Kaster, Bo Hibbs, Phil & Eva Hasch, H. A. Solstad, Vernon Christiansen, Leonard Koehnen, Les Renner, Frank Sample, Greg Peterson, Tom & Pat Scherber, Dan Balloy, Arlene & Tom Donahue, Jane Weisman, Brian Johnson, Cheryl & George Fougeron, Dave & Brenda Hochstatter, Toby Trevis, Salley & Jim Bedell, Clinton Blaiser, Ken Junker, Wende L. Brady, Mike Colbert, Mary Ann LaVoie, Shirley Curtis, Jody Johnson, Mr. & Mrs. John Tombers, Denny Flack, Diane Maloney, Richard Indritz, Mark Hanus, Jane Kempf, Bill Beyer, Glen Neddermeyer, Michael & Mo Mueller, Allan Wigand, Diane & David Bartels, Bill Schumer, Dorothy & Bill Netka, Gordon Simons, Mr. & Mrs. Sam Snodgrass, Cklair Hasse, Tom LaVoie, George Warner, Del Pfeiffer, Rick Siler, Lewis Anderson, John Schulz, and Dennis Heckes. 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 July 14, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE (SECTION 319) The City Manager gave the background of the public hearings that have been held, April 28 and June 23. He explained that the City would like the rental inspection program to be self-sustaining, paid for by the revenues of licensing. He stated that no summary ordinances have been prepared for this meeting because of questions on the implementation of the two ordinances, the rental licensing and housing maintenance regulations for rental housing. 129 July 28, 1992 The Building Official reviewed the regulations in the proposed Chapter 319. The Mayor stated that the Council began looking at the deteriorating housing stock in Mound about 5 or 6 years ago. They looked at creating an overall ordinance but decided to break it down into 3 areas: 1. Truth in Housing (inspection at point of sale, where the new owner would be aware of any deficiencies) - this would apply to any dwelling that would be sold. 2. Exterior Maintenance - this would apply to any dwelling in the City. 3. Rental maintenance ordinance. The ordinance came about to control deteriorating rental property. Chapter 495 was created to cover the implementation of Chapter 319. The Mayor stated he has met with a number of landlords, listened to their position, and some very good points came out of that meeting. One of their points was that in order to get to the structures that need to be addressed, the City would have to apply this to every structure in town, not just rental units. They asked why they would be charged for an inspection that they don't need. The Mayor further stated that the City does not want to increase the cost of housing. The Mayor gave examples of why landlords have to maintain their property, i.e. internal revenue service rules on running this type of business, lease forms, etc. There also is a Minnesota law that requires landlords to maintain their property. Based on this, the Mayor stated that he feels the City should not implement the inspection fees or the rental licensing ordinance. However, he felt the standards should be instituted so that there is a standard which the landlord and the tenant are bound to. Councilmember Smith stated that this ordinance was not proposed to raise funds or raise rents. He stated that he is in favor of the ordinance because there are problem properties in town. The City currently has no ordinance to take care of these problems. He stated this is one part of three ordinances that the Council is considering. The Exterior Maintenance ordinance would address all the other properties in town. He stated, however, that can be accomplished by fines and he would be agreeable to no fees. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke against the adoption of Chapters 319 and 495 for the following reasons: 130 July 28, 1992 Gordon Simons, owns 3017 Longfellow Lane Mr. & Mrs. Sam Snodgrass, 3025 Longfellow Lane Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. Clint Blaiser, Management company for Grandview Apts. John Dooms, Plymouth, owns rental property in Mound Cklair Hasse, 6627 Bartlett Blvd. Dennis Heckes, owns 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. Ken Junker, 4776 Island View Drive Paul Kaster, 2600 Casco Point Road, owns rental property Julie Lillidahl, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd., owns rental property David Hochsetter, Bloomington, owns rental property John Schulz, 3192 Westedge Blvd., owns rental property Kathleen Okins, caretaker, 2501 & 2479 Commerce Blvd. Lewis Anderson, 5000 North Arm Drive Tom LaVoie, Treasurer Lakewinds Association George Warner, Rental Housing Association Dorothy Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd. Del Pfeiffer, owns 3137 Inverness Lane Phil Hasch, 4804 Northern Road, owns rental property Rick Siller, caretaker, 5322 Maywood Road GORDON SIMONS, owns 3017 Longfellow Lane - thanked elected officials and employees for the quality work that is done and the cost effective services that are rendered to the citizens; resents the city finding another way to get into his pocketbook for a few of his dollars so that the city can tell him what he can and cannot do; against Chapter 495; he explained that he and his wife are licensed to do adult foster care for Hennepin County and wanted to know how this would affect the adult foster care program. SAM SNODGRASS, 3025 Longfellow - stated Mound has enough laws and building codes but they need to be enforced; against licensing; renters having a hard time paying rent now. JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. - asked for statistics on complaints about rental property (weekly, monthly, or last 6 months); how many problem rental properties are there in Mound; disagreed with the number of units used to determine the revenues for the inspections (the report showed over 800 and there are only 550), thus projections are incorrect; inspections would be a violation to the tenant's right to privacy. CLINT BLAISER, representing management company for Grandview Apartments - fee structure is much higher than other cities, i.e. Brooklyn Park or Minneapolis (Brooklyn Park is $75.00/building plus $7.50/unit; Minneapolis is $28.00 the first unit and $15.00 each additional unit; he was not dead set against the ordinance, but the fees are outrageous; 131 July 28, 1992 problems with a couple of the items in the ordinances (compliance being within 15 days, too short, 30 days would be more realistic; has a problem with Sections 319.105 and 494:20 subd. 1); hate to see discrimination against rental properties. JOHN DOOMS, lives in Plymouth, owns property in Mound and Hopkins - not against having an ordinance to improve all properties; pays $15.00/year for the double bungelow in Hopkins; fees are too high; don't single out rental owners, should be for everyone. CKLAIR HASSE, 6627 Bartlett Blvd. - asked if 319:10 Subd. 5 included mobile homes; Section 319:15 subd. 12 should be for everyone, not just renters; against the ordinance. DENNIS HECKES, owns 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. - did not feel notification was appropriate; paying high taxes already; feels discriminated against as a rental property owner; the ordinance is too restrictive and complicated; against the fees and inspections; are the inspections to be announced of just random; against the ordinances. KEN JUNKER, 4776 Island View Drive - zoning ordinance is not being enforced; against increased taxes and increase in staff; against the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that the State of Minnesota does not regulate rental housing. There are general rules that apply between a landlord and a tenant as to habitable housing, etc. The State has no input whatsoever and does not regulate rental housing. Each municipality that is going to control its housing stock develops their own ordinances to regulate rental housing. VIRGINIA SNODGRASS, 3025 Longfellow Lane - against the ordinances. PAUL KASTER, 2600 Casco Point Road (owns home on Dale Road) - doesn't feel the same rules apply to the homeowner as what is proposed for rental property; suggested having neighbors police their own neighborhoods; against the ordinances. JULIE LILLIDAHL, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd. - against the ordinance; she pointed out that in the Landlords and Tenants Rights & Responsibilities booklet a renter can call the local building inspector and complain about violations in a unit; she complained there are no laws to protect landlords; need an overall city clean-up upon complaint only whether rental or owner occupied; there are enough codes if they are enforced. 132 July 28, 1992 DAVID HOCHSETTER, Bloomington (owns a house in Mound on Cedar Lane) - use the laws you have don't create another; they also manage 5 other properties in 5 other cities and the proposed fees are the highest of any of the other cities; against the ordinance. JOHN SCHULZ, 3192 Westedge Blvd. - against the ordinance; stated parts of the proposed ordinance (319) exceeds the Building Code; complained about all the illegal rental property in Mound; fees too high; KATHLEEN OKINS, caretaker of 2501 and 2479 Commerce Blvd. - asked about 319:30, subd. 1, which requires an approved security system on all entrances; owners asked that she tell the Council they are against the ordinances; against the fee structure also. LEWIS ANDERSON, 5000 North Arm Drive - against the ordinance. TOM LA VOIE, Treasurer of Lakewinds Association - against the ordinance; asked if this could be put on as a referendum at the next election; suggested a positive approach instead of a negative. The City Attorney stated that advisory questions are not permitted by State law in an election. GEORGE WARNER, Minnesota Multi-Housing Association - fees are about 200% greater than fees in other municipalities; have never heard of yearly inspections, 3, 5 or 7 year program is the usual; complaint base inspection system process would be effective; will have a negative impact on rental housing; felt the City should work with the landlords by forming a task force to study this process. DOROTHY NETKA, 2360 Commerce Blvd. - against the ordinance; invasion of privacy; discriminatory against rental property owners. DELL PFEIFFER, owns 3137 Inverness Lane - complained about ordinances not be enforced, having junk cars, unkept grass and general conditions of the property around his property. BILL MEYER, 6601 Bartlett Blvd. - have been through alot of this as Chairman of the Planning Commission, but here as a citizen and feels if we are going to make ordinances that affect the appearance of some of the homes then we should have the same ordinances for all homes. 133 July 28, 1992 JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. - asked that the Council act on a complaint basis only, using existing local and state laws or that a rental property owners association be formed to police the complaints among themselves and do this on a trial basis for one year. PHIL HASCH, 4804 Northern Road - asked about HUD property and if that would be a subject for this ordinance. DENNIS HECKES - stated the landlords should be pro-active citizens and allow themselves to improve the properties. There has to be a better way than what is proposed. The Mayor stated that he is opposed to the fees and inspections and it is his full intent to ask for a motion to table and to ask for input from the landlords to make a workable ordinance. ERIC SILER, caretaker of 5322 Maywood Road - against the ordinance as proposed. In favor of having landlords police themselves. The Mayor closed the matter to the public and brought the item back to the Council for discussion. The Mayor asked the Building Official and the City Attorney to explain if there are other existing rules or laws from other governmental units that would cover the items in the proposed ordinances. The Building Official pointed out that on page 2316 of the packet there is a pamphlet entitled "Landlords and Tenants". He explained that this pamphlet outlines the tenants and landlords responsibilities. This was published by the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. He stated that if there is an applicable code an order can by written. In most cases there is no housing code or rental code that applies in Mound at this time. The City Attorney stated that what the Attorney General has handed out is a general thing which goes to tenants rights and remedies, etc., but it does not go to specific things. General state law requires that if a person is going to rent property, 1) it has to be fit to live in, 2) it has to be kept in reasonable repair, and 3) it has to be kept in compliance with state and local, health housing codes. That is why the local municipalities have the local housing codes so that there is something to comply with. But anytime you have a dispute between a tenant and a landlord, they have to go to court to resolve their differences. The intention of this kind of an ordinance is not to exacerbate disputes between a landlord and a tenant, but to maintain housing stock by keeping it up on a regular basis. If the Building Official were called and 134 July 28, 1992 there was a violation of the health code, safety code, or fire code or something of that nature, he has some action he can take. The hazardous building state statute would allow the city to go out and if the property is hazardous, we can go to court and get it determined to be hazardous, but we have to go through a procedure and give the landlord the right to fix it up or to repair it. All of these things take court actions. There is no general housing code as it relates to the state. There is a Building Code and he asked the Building Official to address that because it has been brought up a couple of times that there are some things in this ordinance that are different than the State Building Code. The Building official explained that when a complaint is received the Building Code that was in effect at the time the building was constructed would be what would have to be adhered to. The problem comes in when there is a complaint on an older building, there was minimal or no code in effect, so there is nothing to apply. He stated that to his knowledge there is nothing in the code that is in conflict with the State Building Code. He further explained that the State Building Code is a minimum requirement. The City Attorney pointed out that the State Building Code applies if you are going to build something. The Building Official or the City does not have the right to go out to a rental property as it now exists or to an individual property owners home and say that this is not in compliance with the current building code. The City's control is at the time the construction takes place or if someone comes in for a conditional use permit or a variance that is when the city can make some references and require things be brought up to certain codes if its at all practical or feasible. In some cases that can be done, in others not. The Mayor stated that in the lease forms he has seen, the landlord agrees to maintain the property to the state and local units of government ordinances. The Mayor asked the City Attorney if a tenant could refuse to let the rental property be inspected. The City Attorney stated that he has had experience with this code in another city and to the best of his knowledge this has not been a problem because the things that they are inspecting for are intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of the tenant. The way this is arranged, it is designed to be licensed just as any other business is licensed. When citizens engage in a business, the city has the right to adopt regulations and license it. The ordinance is not looking to whether the people are good housekeepers, it has specific standards which go to building, health and safety issues. The Council discussed the public nuisance ordinance. 135 136 July 28, 1992 The City Manager reported that of the 60 complaints received in the past year, 19 were on rental property and 41 were on owner occupied structures. The Building Official explained that they do receive many complaints from renters, but when they are informed that we do not have ordinances to deal with their problems, the complaints are dropped. These records were not kept in the past, they will be in the future. The Council reviewed the suggestions that were made; forming a task force to study this; a block to block survey; looking at the fee structure and inspections. The Mayor stated that what he is hearing from the Council is that the idea of fees and inspections be rejected. That the ordinance be administered on a complaint basis. We need to work with the landlords, a task force has worked in the past. The task force probably should contain landlords who own or operate multi-family units (4 or more), duplex or triplex, single family, and then one or two tenants (1 from multi-family and 1 from single family). If an inspector is going to react to a complaint he/she needs a code to inspect to. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to table this item and continue the public hearing, have the landlords decide who they want to represent them and get together and sit down and talk about Chapter 319. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANEw LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087w VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building official explained that this is carried over from the last meeting. The Planning Commission vote to deny failed 4 to 4. The staff recommended approval of Option A based on reasonable use of the property. Councilmember Jensen stated that she cannot support this because it is not the minimum variance. Councilmember Jessen stated that she cannot support this because the house was built after the ordinances were in place and should meet all setbacks. The Council discussed the setback differences between Option A & B. They also discussed where the house is actually located versus what was shown on the site plan for the proposed house when it was built. Since then a new survey has been submitted and there needs to be a recognition of existing nonconformities in the setbacks for 136 ]37 July 28, 1992 the house also. property. No variances were granted previously on the George Fougeron was present and stated that when he purchased the property, about 1 year ago, he was unable to find an variances on the property. The City did not have any record of any problems with the property. He then requested that the Council approve his request for the 6 additional feet on the deck. He submitted pictures of the area and showed that the extension of his deck would in actuality only cover the planter box that is presently in front of his present deck. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-88 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4v BLOCK 4v REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID %13-117- 24 21 0087, P & Z CASE %92-019 The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay. carried. Motion 1.3 CASE #92-032: KIM & MICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT 4, SUBD. OF LOTS i & 32v S & L RAVENSWOOD~ PID ~13-117-24 41 0033~ FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request and that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the fence height variance on an 8 to 1 vote. The staff recommended approval of the 2 foot fence height variance to permit installation of a 6 foot high fence due to practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Arbor Lane is one of the most intensively developed areas in the City. Councilmember Jensen stated that her notes from the Planning Commission Meeting indicate that the fence is on top of a deck which made it even higher then 6 feet. The Building Official stated that the Zoning Code definitions for fences would not typically include an ornamental feature that is on top of the deck. Staff's opinion is that if you build a deck and put a fence up on top of the deck, that it is part of the deck and part of the structure rather than part of a fence that is independent of the deck and would be anchored to the ground and is typically on the lot line. The applicant was present and stated that the structure is already in place. She presented pictures. The new neighbor has no objections to the fence. 137 July 28, 1992 The Planner stated that normally the setback for a fence 6 feet high is for visibility of traffic, but in this case you have a garage that is closer to the road than the fence. She stated that there is a difference in the elevation (at least one foot) of the two lots and that is helping to cover up the unsightly cement slab with stuff piled on it. There was a fence there previously. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FENCE VARIANCE FOR KIM & MICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANEv LOT 4v SUBD. OF LOTS I & 32, S a L RAVENSWOOD, PID %13-117-24 41 0033, FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE, CASE %92-032 The Mayor stated that he has moved this because the adjoining property is much more of a barrier to the line of sight from the street and that is the purpose for the ordinance in the first place. The Council discussed this not being a precedent to allow 6 foot high fences along the street, but this is a unique situation where the adjoining structure about 3 feet away is about 3 feet taller and if measured from the peak it would probably be 8 feet taller. The vote was 4 in favor with Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE #92-033= WENDY BRADY~ 2174 CENTERVIEW LANEt LOTS 11 & 28, BLOCK 7 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID ~13-117-24 31 0055, SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-90 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING ADDITION ONTOANEXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING AT LOTS 11 & 12~ BLOCK 7~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK~ PID %13-117-24 31 0055, 2174 CENTERVIEW L~NEt P & Z CASE %92-033 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 138 139 July 28, 1992 1.5 CASE #92-034: SONCOR INVESTMENTBv 1943 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 17 & PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 23 0041, LOT AREA VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR LOT 17 AND THAT PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 23 0041, 1941 SHOREWOOD LANE, P & Z CASE %92-034 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE #92-035= LEONARD KOEHNEN, 2151 CEDAR LANE, LOT 26 & 1/2 OF 27t BLOCK 2, ABI~m~{AM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARKt PID ~13-117-24 32 0021~ SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-92 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT LOT 26 & 1/2 OF 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARKv PID %13-117-24 32 0021, 2151 CEDAR LANE, P & Z CASE %92-035 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE #92-036: WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23- 117-24 42 0014~ VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION The City Planner explained the request. The Staff recommended denial of the variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The Building Official had reviewed the existing home and prepared a list of deficiencies. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request based on the Building Official's report on the serious structural problems of the structure. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to have staff prepare a resolution of denial and bring it back to the next meeting. 139 1.8 July 28, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #92-038= D]tNIEL T. BALLOY. 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0021, VARIANCE - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING The city Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %13- 117-24 11 0021, 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE, P & Z CASE %92-038 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE #92-039= ALLAN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28, 29 & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0106, VARIANCE - ADDITION The city Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-94 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING A NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO A CONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT LOTS 28, 29, & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID %19-117-23 33 0106, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, P & Z CASE %92- 039 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 CASE #92-041= DAVID & DIANE BARTELSt 5246 PIPER ROAD, LOT 28t WHIPPLE SHORES, PID ~25-117-24 21 0100~ RECOGNITION OF EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: 140 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-95 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE ~%N EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 5246 PIPER ROAD, LOT 28v WHIPPLE SHORESv PID 925-117-24 21 0100, P & Z C~SE %92-041 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.11 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION: REQUEST FOR STAIRWAY/WALKWAY, CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE ~42314 The Building official handed out background material in addition to what was in the Council packets: Resolution 92-48 which allows Ms. Munson to construct a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons according to code; Minutes from the April 28, 1992, Council Meeting; letter from himself to Ms. Munson regarding city Council action regarding the boathouse, also included with that letter was information on handrails and stairways and that she needed to contact him; responses from Ms. Munson's structural engineer regarding the boathouse repairs and patio deck. Ms. Munson had previously stated that she would like to reuse the existing deck railing to prevent people from falling off the old patio area. Her engineer specifies some methods of reconstructing that area that have been reviewed and approved by staff. In the information is the staff recommendation to the Park & Open Space Commission, page 2471 and their recommendation on page 2472. There is a proposed resolution on page 2469 of the packet. The Building official then reviewed the 7 items in the resolution. The Building Official recommended incorporating the existing masonry walls in the construction on public lands permit so that repairs can be made when the walls are exposed. The Council discussed the guard rail that Ms. Munson is requesting be installed where the masonry wall is located. The Building Official stated that if this area is to be used for plantings and not a patio area, he would not recommend a guard rail. The Park Director recommended that the area in question be filled and re- graded between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. The applicant did not want to have to mow the area. The Council discussed using plantings in the area instead of grass. 141 142 July 28, 1992 Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY AND GUARDRAIL ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE %42314, /~BUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON The Mayor pointed out that the stairway, walkway and maintenance of the masonry retaining wall were already approved. The Council discussed the area above the masonry wall and what should be put in there, plantings, grass, or shrubs. The vote was 2 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. Ms. Munson's, Attorney Richard Indritz, was present and asked what can be done with the area between the playhouse and the steps. He stated that the area in question is potentially dangerous because of the height. He stated that Ms. Munson would no longer be responsible for this potentially dangerous area. He stated that he believes that Ms. Munson is still entitled to access between the walkway and the playhouse and it's not been decided whether it should be crushed gravel or sod and that is being left up to her discretion. In terms of which choice it would be, the Park Commission thought it was more reasonable that there be crushed gravel there. Erosion is not a problem because of the level surface and there is a raised edge on the retaining wall, so it will not be washing off. Grass is impractical and if the City wants to take the responsibility for maintaining that grass, Ms. Munson will call the maintenance crews every two weeks to come and take care of it. Ms. Munson is willing to go along with all the recommendations of the Park Commission and he has not heard any alternatives proposed by the City Council. The Mayor recommended that the Staff (Building official or Park Director) be directed to suggest some plantings that would work on the patio area to delineate the area of the edge of the retaining wall. Mr. Indritz stated that Ms. Munson would allow the City Park Dept. to put in the plantings they deem appropriate to delineate the edge of the retaining wall from the rest of the level area. The Park Director pointed out that the Park Commission wanted to have the expiration date of the construction on public lands permit be consistent with the existing maintenance permit. In other words, that in just over two years from now that all the maintenance permits will expire on the property and then they will 142 143 July 28, 1992 be able to decide if they want to take out this flat area and regrade it to a sloping area. The Council did not think cementing in 4 foot treated posts in this area was realistic if they are going to be taken out in 2 years. The City Manager asked if Ms. Munson's intent was to remove the deck as was ordered on December 10, 19917 He also asked about the boathouse. The Staff was asked to get clarification to Council questions from Ms. Munson's engineer on the condition of the boathouse. The Building official presented information on his conversation with the engineer. The answers provided by the engineer were not conclusive. The Council discussed the fact that Ms. Munson wanted to do the repairs to the boathouse during the winter. Mr. Indritz stated he was not aware of this. The Council also pointed out that Ms. Munson, at a previous meeting, indicated that she thought she had 2 1/2 years to complete the repairs to the boathouse and that was not the Council's intention. Mr. Indritz stated that due to Ms. Munson's employment she is out of town alot and is asking that she be allowed 3 months to do the repairs as recommended or suggested by her structural engineer. He stated she would like until November 1, 1992, to do those repairs to the boathouse. The Council discussed removing the boathouse when the permit expires in 2 1/2 years. Mr. Indritz stated he understood this was a renewable permit, so she would have the opportunity to request renewal at its expiration. The Council decided that should be left to the City Council at that time. The Council then discussed having the minimal repairs done to the boathouse. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith directing staff to prepare a resolution that would allow the repairs to the boathouse as suggested by the structural engineer and that those repairs be completed by November 1, 1992. Within that resolution, it is to be stated that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance permit. Councilmember Smith asked to make a friendly amendment removing the language that it must be taken down at the end of the maintenance permit (2 years). The Mayor stated that his intention was that this Council would recommend that the structure be removed at the end of the maintenance period. The City Attorney stated that as he understands it, if there is a message to be conveyed in the future, 1) you are saying to the applicant that you want her to spend a minimal amount of money on the repairs to make the boathouse safe, 2) the 143 144 July 28, 1992 Council is doing this with the idea that when the current permit expires they will be asked to remove the boathouse because of the unsafe conditions. The City Attorney asked if this is the language that the Council wanted in the resolution. The Mayor stated that was his intent. Councilmember Smith stated that would be forewarning any future buyers and alerting future Councils. The vote on the above motion directing staff to prepare a resolution with the language given by the City Attorney was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried. The Council then discussed the construction on public lands permit that failed earlier. There were suggestions to modify items 3 and 4 in that resolution, as follows: The existing guardrail shall be removed and replaced with plantings along the guardrail area, as approved by the Park Director. There was discussion that the decorative lattice work that is currently 2 feet out from the retaining wall and that could be a problem if left after the guardrail is removed and plantings are done on the top of the wall. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work be moved in flush with the masonry wall and plantings be allowed to remain. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith that this item be continued for Z weeks and directing staff to prepare resolutions on the boathouse and the construction on public lands permit in accordance with Council,s direction, changing items 3 & 4 and to clarify the walkway going to the playhouse. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 UNPAID LATE DOCK LICENSE FEE, CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE ~42514 The Dock Inspector reviewed how late fees are charged. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended a $20.00 additional late fee. He explained that the late fee that Ms. Munson has paid so far is $20.00 on June 1st and another $20.00 just this last week. He is assuming that the later $20.00 is what the Park Commission recommended. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to concur with the Park Commission and approve Ms. Munson's latest $20.00 late 144 .'145 July 28, 1992 fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Indritz asked if this would clear up the fee question. Council agreed. The The Council asked for an update on the deck removal at Ms. Munson's. Mr. Indritz stated Ms. Munson has been working on a process and now that there is a decision on the retaining wall she will be taking the necessary steps to comply. Staff to present a progress report at the next meeting. 1.13 PUBLIC LANDSMAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUEST TO REPLACE A STAIRWAYm BILL SCHUMERm 2885 CAMBRIDGE LANE~ DOCK SITE #51435 The Building Official reported that the applicant has decided to replace the entire stair system and meet the Building Code. He has worked with the applicant on the plan. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval. Councilmember Smith stepped down as he is a neighbor of Mr. Schumer. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 992-96 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMONS ABUTTING 2885 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 36, ~CI{WOOD, DOCK SITE 951435 The vote was 4 in favor with Smith abstaining. Motion carried. 1.14 TAX FORFEIT LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR SALE 1) PID ~13-117-24 12 0067, LOT 1, BLOCK 13~ DREAMWOOD PID ~13-117-24 lZ 0069, LOT 15~ BLOCK 13~ DREAMWOOD 3) PID #19-117-23 32 0128, LOT 26, BLOCK 11m WYCHWOOD The city Clerk explained that the Planning Commission recommended that these lots be released for sale to adjoining property owners. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended that they not be release until they have completed their Nature Conservation Area Study. There was discussion on the Nature Conservation Area Study and its progress. The question is "What is a nature conservation area?" There was disagreement on whether to wait to release these properties. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: 145 146 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-97 RESOLUTION TO RELEASE THE FOLLOWING TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS 1) PID %13-117-24 12 0067, LOT 1, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD 2) PID %13-117-24 12 0069, LOT 15, BLOCK 13v DREAMWOOD 3) PID %19-117-23 32 0128, LOT 26, BLOCK 11, WYCHWOOD The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Johnson voting nay. Motion carried. 1.15 APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL DOCK APPLICATION FOR HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to approve issuance of a Commercial Dock Permit for Halstead Acres Improvement Association. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. There were questions on how much time the L.M.C.D. spends on their review of this type of dock license that generate no fees for Mound and if others are subsidizing this type of program with fees. The City Manager stated that Mound's L.M.C.D. Representative and the L.M.C.D. Director will be attending the Committee of the Whole Meeting in August to address the issue of fees and budget. The Council asked for a copy of all the L.M.C.D.'s fees to be included in the next packet and before the August meeting. 1.16 RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR 1992 CDBG PROGRAM (YEAR XVIII) The City Manager reported that this is to formalize what has been approved previously. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-98 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENTAGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT RE: SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE The City Manager reported that this is the same as previous years. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: 146 .147 July 28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-99 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUg TASK FORCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $84,711.72, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ac June 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. B. LMCD mailings. Letter of resignation from Eldo Schmidt, Chair, Mound HRA. Eldo has dedicated many years of service to the City of Mound beginning in 1964 as a Planning Commissioner and then as a City Councilmember. He took office at the HRA in 1973 and has served there ever since. Please begin thinking about this vacancy and see if there are some individuals that may be suitable for this position. The City Manager stated we need to find a replacement for Mr. Schmidt. De Letter dated July 17, 1992, from John Cameron, City Engineer re: explanation of final payment request on 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project. E. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1992. F. Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1992. Ge Letter from Ridgeview Medical Center re: efforts of Officer Dan Niccum in assisting with Basic Life Support on a recent case. Letter from the National League of Cities regarding key federal issues that will be coming before Congress before its scheduled adjournment. City softball game has been rescheduled to Saturday, August 15, 1992, Philbrook Park, 2 P.M. Let's see if we can put together a "respectable" team to take on the Fire 147 148 Je Le July 28, 1992 Department. We have scheduled a reception for Officer Ron Bostrom who is retiring from the City effective September 1, 1992. It is scheduled for Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Please mark your calendar to attend and wish Ron well as be begins his retirement. We have received notice from the National League of Cities that the 69th Annual Congress of cities Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this years conference is "Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership". Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are interested in attending. Notice from the Regional Transit Board of a meeting to share the local impacts of the RTB's "Vision in Transit" - Tuesday, August 11, 1992, 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., Best Western/Hotel Seville, 8151 Bridge Road, Bloomington. Please let Fran know if you are interested in attending. MOTION made bY Jensen, seconded by &hrens to adjourn at 12:45 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~w~a~r~d !t S "~u~. ~~C ity Manager Attest-." Clty Clerk 148 July 28, 1~92 BATCH 2072 $84,711.72 TOTAL BILLS $84,711.72