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