The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-04-28CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The city of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1992 CITY COUNCIl, CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 14, 1992 REGULAR MEETING AND THE APRIL 21, 1992 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 980 - 987 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK, MAY 4-8, 1992 IN THE CITY OF MOUND. PG. 988 - 989 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) PG. 990 - 1019 CASE NO. 92-005: FRED SCHMUDLACH, 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7, BLOCK 1, MOUND TERRACE, PID# 14-117-24 32 0007. VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION PG. 1020 - 1035 CASE NO. 92-006: NANCY NORDSTROM, 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID# 13-117-24 21 0041. VARIANCE - DECK. PG. 1036 - 1049 CASE NO. 92-007: MARK HANUS, 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 24 0001, VARIANCE - ADDITION. PG. 1050 - 1066 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 PG. 1067 - 1083 977 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 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. PG. 1084 - 1103 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT 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. PG. 1104 - 1110 REQUEST FROM MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION TO INCREASE MONTHLY PENSION BENEFIT. PG. 1111 - 1126 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING (BOATHOUSE) ON PUBLIC LANDS (DEVON COMMONS), 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON. PG. 1127 - 1140 REQUEST FROM RICHARD INDRITZ, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS. PG. 1141 - 1252 RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION - STATES SALES TAX APPLICATION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES. PG. 1253 APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. PG. 1254 - 1256 APPROVAL OF LICENSES PG. 1257 PAYMENT OF BILLS PG. 1258 - 1266 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. March 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director PG. 1267 - 1268 B. LMCD mailings. PG. 1269 - 1285 Ce Information from Hennepin Parks on Redistricting PG. 1286 - 1296 REMINDER: Annual Parks Tour - Thursday, May 21, 1992, (See enclosed flyer). PG. 1297 978 E® Fe LMC Annual Conference is scheduled for June 9-12, 1992, Bloomington. Contact Fran is you are interested in attending. Park Minutes of April 9, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 1992 PG. 1298 - 1303 PG. 1304 - 1306 PG. 1307 - 1313 979 47 April 14, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 14, 1992 The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 14, 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. Absent and excused: Councilmember Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Marcella Mason, Phyllis and Scott Stokke, Ernie Strong, Jim Kuehn, Keigh Foerster, Carole Munson, Dean Hanus, Mark Hanus, Parker Hodges, Lorrie Ham and a representative from the Weekly News. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLOTTO WINNER: The Mayor asked Marcella Mason to come forward to accept $100 in Recyclotto dollars and Phyllis Stokke to come forward to accept $50 in Recyclotto dollars. Both persons were present and accepted their winnings. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the minutes of the March 24, 1992 regular meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 BID AWARD: 1992 ANNUAL SEALCOAT PROJECT The City Manager stated that the following bids were received and the low bid was from Allied Blacktop, Inc. of $24,605.00. Allied Blacktop, Inc. Astech Corporation Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $24,605.00 $27,352.00 $30,700.00 The engineer's estimate for this project was $27,200. Blacktop, Inc. was recommended by city staff. Allied Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-38 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE 1992 ANNUAL SEAL COAT PROJECT BID TO ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,605 48 April 14, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 RESOLUTION FOR WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WECAN) RE: HOPE $ pLANNING GI~APPLICATION City Manager Ed Shukle informed Council the'HOPE 3 Program is a new program by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development aimed to empower many low income families to realize the American dream of homeownership. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-39 RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR WECAN'S HOPE 3 PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION The motion passed with 3 votes, Ahrens abstaining requesting more information. PRESENTATION FROM ERNIE STRONG, ~ROUND MOUND RUN/WALK, SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAYu JUNE 13, 1992 Ernie Strong, Race Director, informed Council of the activities enhancing the seventh annual run/walk event on June 13, 1992. Jubilee Foods is preparing a spaghetti dinner on June 12th and Westonka Mohawk Jaycees will be doing a pancake breakfast in the park on Saturday morning. Proceeds from the Around Mound events will be donated to the Westonka Community Foodshelf. 1.3 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Mayor Johnson asked if there was anyone present who had comments or suggestions for the Council. Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, approached the Council. She stated that her attorney had told her today that the boathouse she has on the commons must be removed because it is a hazardous building. City attorney Curt Pearson stated that Building Official Jon Sutherland had noticed that her boathouse, built on public land, was a safety hazard and had asked Curt how this should be handled. The discovery of this hazardous building came about during the taking of inventory of encroaching structures on the commons. No orders had been issued by the City to remove this hazardous building to date. The staff involved was not in attendance. Council took no action. 1.4 LICENSE RENEWALS City Manager Ed Shukle stated the following businesses were renewing various licenses as follows: Expire April 30, 1992. New License Period May 1, 1992 to April 30, 1993. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. 49 April 14, 1992 Bowling - 8 Lanes - Mound Lanes Games of Skill - 2 - A1 & Alma's 1 - American Legion #398 3 - VFW #5113 POOL TABLE - 2 - VFW #5113 JUKE BOX 1 - American Legion #398 1 - VFW #5113 RESTAURANT A1 & Alma's - Class IV American Legion #398 - Class III Domino's Pizza #1974 - Class II Happy Garden - Class I Hardee's - Class II House of Moy - Class IV Scotty B's - Class I Subway Sandwiches - Class II VFW #5113 - Class III NEW LICENSE - Cigarette - Harrison Bay Mobil Mound Police Reserve Unit requests the following licenses for Saturday, May 9, 1992, at the Pond Arena: Charitable Beer Permit Public Dance Permit - Please waive fee Set Up Permit - Please waive fee MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve the license renewals as listed above and approving the Mound Police Reserve Unit requests to waive fees for their licenses. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING ANAPPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE This application is for the summer sweepstakes drawing to be held in conjunction with Mound City Days June 19-20, 1992. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE FOR WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 5O April 14, 1992 The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.6 Motion carried. pAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION by Johnson, seconded byJensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $Z50,761.?$, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. City Manager Ed Shukle updated Council on Governor Carlson's proposed tax cut to LGA. Mayor Johnson stated that he had been approached by the Lions and Lioness's requesting permission to sell beer at Mound Bay Park on June 21, 1992 to defray the cost of the fireworks for Mound City Days. The city attorney stated the code allows for this, they should apply. At 8:30 PM, the Council excused themselves for an executive session to discuss pending litigation. At 9:16 PM the Council resumed the regular meeting. Mayor Johnson stated the Council held executive session to discuss Dakota Rail and the purchase of the downtown parking lots. City attorney Curt Pearson stated the City can either accept the award of $429,000 for the purchase of parking lots or appeal, then there will be a jury trial. If the City appeals, it must put down 75% of the original award price. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to direct city attorney to file an appeal in the case of the condemnation of the City of Mound vs. Dakota Rail. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for March 1992. IRCD Representative's Monthly Report for March 1992. Hand-out Tuesday. C. LMCD mailings. At the last regular meeting, we had the applications for Commercial Dock Licenses through the LMCD for Seton View and Driftwood Shores. The Council questioned the notation made on the Seton View application regarding the 51 April 14, 1992 Fe Je Ke site plan. The Council wondered what had changed this year from last year. We called the LMCD and found out that the actual docks that were installed at Seton View were 3' longer than they were supposed to be under LMCD ordinances. Ordinances allow a maximum dock length of 30'. The docks installed were 33'. The LMCD had to allow a 3' variance. Letter from Representative Steve Smith indicating why he supported the Presidential Primary. Letter and materials from Triax Cablevision re: their changes in billing format. What they are planning to do is change the invoice as they have been changed for the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission (LMCCC) Communities. Apparently, they weren't going to change Mound's billing until we notified them that we should receive the same type of billing as LMCCC. Audit information from Westonka Intervention and Senior Community Services, per your request at the last Meeting. You have already received audit information from WECAN. A letter from the Co-Chairs of the Mound City Days Parade Committee. Please notify Fran if you wish to participate. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting Tuesday, April 21, 1992, 7 P.M., Mound City Hall. City Hall video is being shown on Channel 20, Friday, April 10, at 4:30 P.M. and Saturday, April 11 at 10:00 A.M. As you know, Governor Arne Carlson has proposed to cut Local Government Aid (LGA) to cities as part of a state budget balancing package. If Carlson's proposal were to be approved, the City of Mound would be losing $158,120 in LGA in 1992. State DFL leaders have proposed an alternative to Carlson's cuts. They have proposed that the state sales tax (currently 6.5%) should be applied to local government purchases. For example, the purchases of construction materials, services purchased on the same basis as the general provisions for all consumers and businesses, etc. Fees for architects, lawyers, accountants, etc., would be exempt but services already 52 ~pril 14, 1992 subject to the state sales tax would become taxable when cities purchase them from businesses. Based upon this proposal, the General Fund sales tax burden would be about $65,000 (6.5% x $1,000,0000). The sales tax proposal would apply to about six month of purchases for 1992 or $32,500. The most recent proposal is clearly different from the above option. The Senate passed a tax bill last Friday (April 3) which included a provision to raise income taxes on high income Minnesotans. Half of the $140 million raised annually by the higher taxes would be redistributed as a tax break to lower and middle income taxpayers, the other half would help offset proposed cuts in aid to local governments. The bill passed by a vote of 44-21. This week there have been discussions to have the House adopt the same provision as the Senate. Governor Carlson has indicated he would veto this bill since it would be raising taxes, which he indicated previously, he did not want to do. Although we have been analyzing how we can cut over $158,000 from our budget, we are not prepared to discuss it at this time. These cuts are "painful" and with the uncertainty that is apparent in St. Paul, we have not prepared any formal proposal for you to consider. We are suggesting that this matter be discussed at the COW meeting on April 21, 1992. We will probably know more then than we do.now since the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn at the end of next week. R~MINDER: ANNUAL PARK TOUR - THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1992 (SEE ENCLOSED FLYER) MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn the regular meeting. The vote was unanimous, motion carried. Attest: Acting City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager X~NUTES - COHX2TTEE OF THE WHOLE - ~PR~L 21, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:15 PM. Members present: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and Liz Jensen. Absent and excused: Councilmember Ken Smith. Also present: John Norman, Finance Director; Ed Shukle, City Manager; Fred Hoisington, Mark Koegler and Bruce Chamberlain of The Hoisington Group, Inc., Jerry Pietrowski and Jerry Longpre of the EDC, Jo Longpre, Parker Hodges of the "Sailor", Carole Munson and Dean Hanus. Fred Hoisington presented the preliminary feasibility report on the Mound visions project. He went through several different scenarios in which he presented the tax increment financing approach as it related to certain redevelopment issues that have been raised by the Economic Development Commission and their various subcommittees. It appeared that the drug store project on its own, in conjunction with the re-alignment and improvement of Auditor's Road, would be the most feasible at this time. Hoisington further explained that doing half of Auditor's Road in 1992-93 was affordable. After further discussion, the consensus of the Council was to direct staff to contact the drug store company to resume further discussions regarding the possible development project. Mark Koegler presented the recommendation of the Planning Commission with regard to modifications of the City's zoning ordinance. This matter was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented information from the League of Minnesota Cities which indicated that Local Government Aid cuts were not going to take place in 1992. Rather, the legislature passed a tax law which incorporates the 6.5% sales tax to be applied to local government purchases. He defined what those purchases would be and presented~ information as supplied by the Finance Director, John Norman, on what expenditures in the current operating budget would be exempt from the sales tax and those that would not be exempt. He indicated that $25,379 is the figure that represents a full year for sales tax. The estimated prorated share with a June 1st implementation date would be $14,804. He also presented what the estimated sales tax would be for the other funds that are outside of the general fund. The city manager then went on to explain how the nearly $15,000 would be covered. He explained that personnel changes would be taking place within the police department and parks department that would make up the cost to cover the sales tax application. He further indicated that the sales tax was a short term fix. He went on to say that LGA would be scrutinized again in 1993, with the eventual severance of the state and local government fiscal relationship which could be within a very short time. He further went on to say that we will have to be fiscally responsible in determining the level of property tax that the city wishes to place upon its residents. He further stated that the problems are more long term than just this interim fix. He went on to say that he thought everybody realized ]~inutes - ¢onittee of the Whole - ]~pril 21, ~999 - Page 2 that and as long as we all keep this in mind, we will be able to prepare for managing with less. The Council consensus was to accept the city manager's recommendations. City Manager Ed Shukle discussed the commons markings information that was prepared by Jim Fackler, Parks Director, dealing with the prioritizing of monument installation. Council consensus was to look at the areas suggested during the Parks tour on May 21st and discuss this at a subsequent Committee of the Whole meeting. Ed Shukle, City Manager, outlined the presentation to be given by Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Curt Pearson, City Attorney and himself, dealing with the proposed rental housing ordinance. This public hearing will be held on April 28, 1992. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens brought up the idea of the conflict of interest/ethics policy that was suggested by the Parks and Open Space Commission. She indicated that Tom Casey of the Parks and Open Space Commission had read this in the LMCD minutes and thought that the City might explore this. The City Council consensus was that they felt currently councilmembers and commission members know when it is appropriate to remove themselves from discussions that appear to be a conflict of interest. The Council indicated that they didn't believe a policy was necessary. Artwork for the City council chambers was discussed. indicated that he was continuing to work on this. Skip Johnson A discussion was held on advisory commission appointment and re- appointments. This matter was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting with the intent of voting on a revised policy in June. There being no other business, it was moved by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM. R~e~tted, Ed Sh~kle City Manager ES:Is qg7 HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. O 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-0347 April 15, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The month of May has been designated by the govern- ment to be Older Americans Month. The Westonka Senior Citizens Center will celebrate the week of May 4th through 8th as Senior Citizens Week. We are offering a week-long series of events to mark the occasion, hoping our friends in our four communities will come and share the festivities with us. You will be receiv- ing a special invitation to our Business Friends Breakfast during that week. We would appreciate having the mayors of our four cities proclaim the week of May 4th through 8th as Westonka Senior Citizens Week. Sincerely, Doris LeGault, President A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · Spring Park · Minnetrista HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-O347 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER WEEK MAY 4 - 8 WHEREAS, we need to realize now, more than ever, what a resource our older Americans are, and that the abilities of older Americans to invest our country with their knowledge, creativity and experience cannot be denied; and WHEREAS, senior centers offer valuable service to the community in providing our senior citizens the benefits of good fellowship, encouragement and support, the opportunity to help themselves and each other, and offering service of access to community services as needed; and WHEREAS, the month of May has been proclaimed Older Americans Month, and communities across the country are giving special recognition to the roll of senior center; THEREFORE, we hereby proclaim May 4th through May 8th as Westonka Senior Citizens Center Week in celebration of past accomplishments and encouragement for continuation of involvement and contribution to our Westonka Community. A Non-profit Organization Serving The Communities Of Mound · Orono · ~oring Park · Minnetrista PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING AND AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 1992 to consider the adoption of two ordinances. The first is an ordinance adding Section 495 to the Mound City Code relating to the requirement of obtaining a license to rent housing. The Intent of the licensing is that a permanent mode of protecting and regulating the living conditions of citizens-of the City be established; and that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the City. The second is an ordinance adding Section 319 to the Mound City Code relating to housing maintenance regulations for rental housing. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people of the City. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" April 13, 1992. A. THOMAS WURST. CURTIS. A. PEARSON. P.A. THOMA~ F. UNO[~W~D. P~. C~A~G ~. ~[NTZ R~[R d. FELLOWS LAW OIrFICW$ WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IIOO FIRST BANK PLACIr WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~' March 4, 1992 REC'/] MAR 5 Mr. Edward J. Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Re: City of Mound - Rental Housing Ordinance - Executive Summary Dear Ed: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 12, 1992, wherein you have asked me to submit an executive summary of the proposed rental housing ordinance. You indicate this will be discussed at the City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting, and it is the Council's intention to review this prior to a public hearing. I have prepared an executive summary, but it is very short and simple and basically outlines what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. I have not gone into the details that are in the ordinance, which at times is extremely complex and may have meaning to building officials and contractors but is difficult for lay people to understand. You will recall that after I initially drafted Chapter 319, ameeting was held between the City Planner and the then Building Official and the size of the ordinance was expanded extensively. It was Jan Bertrand's position that much of what she was going to be asked to administer should be placed in the ordinance so she would be able to point to something and tell the landowner why he had to do these things. I believe that much of what she has inserted in this ordinance relates to materials that are in the Uniform Building Code and could be adopted by reference to that Code or to other codes. This is a decision that I believe was discussed in great detail with you and with the other City officials. I am not sure how this was presented to the Planning Commission, but I presume that since this is the final draft that they are submitting to the Council for consideration, that they have basically reviewed and approved this. Ed, I want to point out it is difficult to summarize something which has a good deal of detail. Take the purpose section in Section 319 where we set out 6 specific reasons for enacting the ordinance. It seems to me that it is just as easy for the people to read those so they understand the findings that are being made to justify proceeding with this type of q?l WURST, PEARSON, J. ARSON, UNDERWOOD ~ ME:RTZ control. I will be happy to expand this or go into any particular section raised by the Council, but I don't know how much of a summary you expected or just what it is the City Council wants. It may be that the Planner and/or the Building Official can expand on my outline to cover points that they believe are of special significance to the City Council and to the public who will be subject to the regulations of the proposed ordinance. CAP:Ih Enclosure V~/ truly yo/~, (~rtis A. Pearson City Attorney SUMNARY OF PROPOSED CHAPTER 319 This proposed ordinance works together with proposed Section 495 which is the rental housing licensing ordinance. Under that proposed ordinance, any rental housing must get a license and must maintain the standards set forth in Chapter 319 (495:45). The purpose and intent is to protect and regulate the health and safety conditions for our residents. 319:00 Summary of Section 319 Purpose of Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties. ae 6 reasons are set forth establishing the purpose for enacting the ordinance. These are set forth to indicate purpose and to justify adoption of the ordinance. be 319:05 319:10 The ordinance makes it clear it is not intended to intrude on the contractual obligation of the landlord and the tenant. States the ordinance intends to provide standards to protect the character and stability of residential areas in the City. This is the definition section and sets out explanations of 39 terms used in the ordinance. 319:15 Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants. This prohibits an owner from renting premises unless they are fit for human occupancy and meet all applicable legal requirements of the State or the City. Subd. 1 and 2 define responsibility of the parties for different areas of the structure. The tenant is required to take care of their rubbish and garbage; in multiple units the owner has responsibility to furnish facilities where the tenants can store their garbage. 319:20 There are 15 specific subdivisions setting out responsibilities for the varioius areas and covering health and safety issues. It covers plumbing, heating, lighting, etc. Minimum Standards for Basic Equipment and Facilities. This section requires a kitchen, cabinets, and shelves to store food, and requires a stove and refrigerator, a minimum amount of storage space, toilet facilities, a lavatory sink, and a bathtub or shower. 319:25 Establishes general standards for the structure i.e., the foundation, exterior walls, roof, windows, doors, screens, floors, interior walls, and ceilings. This section also requires the building to be rodent resistant and covers maintenance of fences and accessory structures. 319:30, 319:65, 319:75 319:80, 319:105 319:110, Subd. 7 of this section goes into great detail on required safety elements for stairways, balconies, porches, etc. Subdivisions 8 through 12 set out standards for chimneys, grading and drainage, yard cover, minimum ceiling heights, and access to bedrooms and bathrooms. 319:35, 319:40, 319:45, 319:50, 319:55, and 319:60 are all very technical building code standards which generally follow the Uniform Building Code. Jan Bertrand was with the City when the ordinance was first drafted and she wanted all these items listed in the ordinance. This goes into much more detail than most ordinances of this nature. These sections cover requirements for door and window locks, standards for light and ventilation, electric services, thermal standards, winterizing of the premises, and very detailed requirements relating to fire protection. 319:70. These sections appoint the City Manager as the Compliance Officer and state that inspections shall be during reasonable hours. They also relate to access and lay out the. process if inspection is refused (city application for court order). Unfit for Human Habitation. Sets the standards for declaring a unit unfit for human habitation, and makes it illegal for people to occupy the unit after such a declaration until the defective conditions are corrected. 319:85, 319:90, 319:95, 319:100. Secure Unfit and Vacated Dwellings. Requires owner to make the building safe and secure so it is not hazardous to the public health, safety, and welfare. If the building defects are not corrected it can be declared a hazardous building and a compliance order will be issued outlining the process; the owner has a right to appeal and the Board of Appeals will review the decision. Restriction on Transfer of Ownership. The owner is restricted from transferring ownership while a compliance order is pending. 319:115. These sections indicate that failure to comply is a misdemeanor and allow the City to execute certain compliance orders. Ordinance No. '. 495 To The City Code To The Requirement Of Obtaining A License To Rent Housing Ordinance Adding Section Relating The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 495 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 49~ - Rental ~ousinq Licenses pnd Requlations Section 495=00. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished to them for the payment of a rental charge to another. Section 495:05. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance that a permanent mode of protecting and regulating the living conditions of citizens of the City be established~ and that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the City. Section 495:10. Definitions. Subd. 1. For the purposes of Section 495:00 et seq., the tern~ defined in this section shall have the meanings given them in the subdivisions which follow: Subd. 2. Rental pwellinq. As used in this ordinance the term =rental dwelling' shall mean any dwelling rented to a person or persons other than the owner with one or more dwelling units. =Rental dwelling= does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. Subd. 3. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term =operate' means to charge a rental fee or to make a rental charge for the use of unit in a rental dwelling. Section 495:15. License~equired. No person, firm, or corporationshal~ operate a rental-dwelling in the City without first having obtained license as hereinafter provided from the City Manager. Each such licensee shall register annually on the first day of with the Cit~ Manager. Section 495:20. 8pplicatio~ for ~icenses. Applications for license~ shall be made in writing to the City Manager. Such application shall specify the following: Subd. 1. Name and address of the owner of the rental dwelling. cases where the owner of a rental dwelling lives outside of ~ennepin County limits, the registration shall be made by an operator who shall be legally responsible for compliance with this and other ordinances and such operator shall live in the seven county metropolitan area. Subd. 2. Name and address of any operator or agent activelymanaging said rental dwelling. Subd. 3. Name and address of all partners if the registrant is a partnership. Subd. 4. Name and address of all officers of the corporation if the registrant is a corporation. Subd. 5. Name and address of the vendee if the rental dwelling is owned or being sold on a contract for deed. Subd. 6. Legal address of the rental dwelling. Subd. 7. Number and kind of units within the rental dwelling classified as dwelling units, multiple dwelling units, or rooming units or other. Subd. 8. Height of the rental dwelling in stories. Subd. 9. other. Construction of exterior of building classified as wood or Subd. 10. Such other information as the City Manager deems necessary and relevant to administer the City Code of Ordinances. Section 495=25. ~ppl~cation. Execution. The application shall be subscribed and sworn to by the applicant before an officer duly qualified to take oaths and shall be made by the owner if such owner is a natural person; if the owner is a corporation by an officer thereof; if a partnership by one of the partners; and if an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. Section 495:30. License ~enewa~. Notwithstanding the application signature requirements of Section 495:25, renewal of the license as required annually by this code may be made by filling out the required renewal form furnished by the City Manager to the owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling and mailing said form together with the required registration fee to the City Manager. Such renewal of registrations may only be made where there has not been a change in the ownership, operator, agent or type of occupancy as originally licensed. Section 495:35. ~icense Fee~. Such license fees shall be in the amount set by the Council from time to time. Section 495:40. posting. Every registrant of a rental dwelling shall post the annual license issued by the City Manager. In any multiple dwelling, the annual license shall be conspicuously posted (ina frame with a transparent covering) by the registrant in a public corridor, hallway or lobby of the rental dwelling for which they are issued. Section 495:45. Naintenance ~__~ALd~. Every rental dwelling shall maintain the standards in Chapter 319, Nousing Maintenance Code, for Rent~ Dwellings, in addition to any other requirement of the ordinances of th. City or special permits issued by the City, or the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 495:70. Landscape Condition. Each rental dwelling shall be maintained by its owner, occupant, operator or agent so that the yards, open spaces and parking facilities are kept in a safe and attractive condition. Nhere a conditional use permit has been granted, the landscaping shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be considered as minimal and shall be maintained accordingly. Any deviation to species or material shall be equal to or better than originally approved· In addition, adequate lighting facilities shall be provided and operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise; and snow plowing or snow shoveling shall be regularly accomplished to maintain all sidewalks and perking areas in a safe and passable condition. Section 495=75. Safety From Pire. An owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling shall be responsible.to comply with the applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code of the City in keeping open all fire lanes established by the City. Section 495:80. Inspection6 pnd ~nvestiqations. Subd. 1. The City Manager and the duly appointed compliance official are hereby authorized to make inspections reasonably necessary to th enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. 2. All persons authorized herein to inspect shall have the authority to enter, at all reasonable times, any rental dwelling which has a license pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Persons inspecting any rental dwelling as provided herein shall notify the license holder of all violations, if any, by written notice. Said notice shall direct that compliance be made in not more than 15 days, unless extended by the compliance official based on good cause. Section 495:85o Revocation or Suspension. Subd. 1. Every license or permit issued under this ordinance subject to the right, which is hereby expressly reserved, to suspend or revoke the same should the license holder or their agents, employees, representatives or lessees directly or indirectly operate or maintain rental dwellings contrary to the provisions of this ordinance or any other ordinance of the City or any special permit issued by the City or the laws of the State of Minnesota. Subd. 2. The license may be suspended or revoked by the Council after a written notice is sent to the license holder specifying the ordinanceor law violations with which they are charged. Thisnotic~ shall also specify the date for hearing before the Council, which shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the notice. Subd. 3. At such hearing before the Council, the license holder or their attorney's may submit and present witnesses in their defense. Subd. 4. After a hearing, the Council may suspend or revoke the license if they deem it necessary to protect the public health, safety or general welfare. The Council determination to suspend or revoke shall provide the tenants a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days, to vacate the premises if the Council determines that repairs can be mae; or if the Council establishes a different solution to the problem, the suspension or revocation resolution shall set forth the requirements established by the City Council to reinstate the license. Section 495:90. Summary Action. Subd. 1. When the conduct of any license holder or their agent, representative, employee or lessee or the condition of their rental dwelling is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition and thus give rise to an emergency, the compliance official shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close off such area of the rental dwelling. Sub4. 2. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the compliance official to cease business or revoke or suspend the license or permit shall be entitled to appeal to the Council immediately, by filing a Notice of Appeal. The Manager shall schedule a date for hearing before the Council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. Subd. 3. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. Sub4. 4. The decision of the compliance official shall not be voided by the filing of such appeal. Only after the Council has held its hearing will the decision of the compliance official be affected. Section 495:94. Applicable Laws. Licenses shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the City and the State of Minnesota relating to rental dwellings; and this ordinance shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. RECEIVED DEC '1991 UNO PLANNING & IN,. Ordinance No. An Ordinance Adding Section 319 To The City Code Relating To ~ousing Maintenance Regulations For Rental Housing The City follows: of Mound Does Ordain: Section 319 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as ~ }1~ - Housing Maintenance Re~ions '' For Rental Pr e~ Section 319:00. Pu[_~. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people'of the City. These general objectives include, among others, the following: Subd. 1. To protect the character and stability of residential areas within the City. Subd. 2. To correct and prevent housing conditions that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and health. Subd. 3. To provide minimum standards for cooking, heating and sanitary equipment and for light and ventilation necessary to protect the health and safety of occupants of buildings. Subd. 4. To prevent the overcrowding of dwellings. Subd. 5. To provide minimum standards for the maintenance of existing residential buildings and to thus prevent substandard housing and blight. Subd. 6. To preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the City. With respect to disputes between tenants and landlord, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this ordinance, it is not the intention of the City Council to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. The City Council does not intend to intervene as an advocate of either party, nor to act as an arbiter, nor to be receptive to complaints from tenant or landlord which are not specifically and clearly relevant to the provisions of this ordinance. In the absence of such relevancy with regard to rental disputes, it is intended that the contracting parties exercise such legal sanctions as are available tO them without the intervention of City government. In enacting this ordinance it is not the intention of the City Council to interfere or permit interference with legal rights to personal property. -1- Section 319:05. ~Pplicabilityg/~. ?his ordinanceestablishe. minimum standards-~or maintaining rental dwelling units, accessory structures and related premises. ?his ordinance is intended to provide standards for rental housing and to provide standards to protect the character and stability of residential areas in the City. ?hese regulations shall apply to rental housing as defined and licensed by Section 495 of the City Code. Section 319=10. D_~ij~J_{L{~. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. l. ~ccessory ~ or ~~_qLe_l. A non-residential use or structure subordinate to, and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. Subd. 2. A r~. As to materials and types of construction, refers to approved by the Compliance Official as the result of investigation and tests conducted by him/her, or by teas. on of accepted principals or tests by recognized 'authorities, technical or scientific organizations. Subd. 3. Bu__u_jj_d~. Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure for persons, animals, or chattel, and when said structure is divided by party walls without openings, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. Subd. 4. ~ ~. The City Manager and his/her designated agents authorized to administer and enforce this ordinance. Subd. 5. ~. A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes; but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, trailers, tents, cabins or trailer coaches. Subd. 6. ~-~:~a~. A building designed exclusively for and occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Subd. 7. P_k~j_~[~~. A building designed exclusively for or occupied by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other. Subd. 8. {~ -P~ Fwi~ ~_0_~. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other with each unit located on a separate, single parcel of record, with the party wall separating the units actin9 as a dividing lot line. Subd. 9. ~Uni~. A single family dwelling or unit designed to accommodate one family. Sul~l, 10. ~. An individual, or two or more persons each related by blood, marriage, a~option, or foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit~ or a group of not more than four (4) persons not so related, maintaining a common household and using common cooking and kitchen facilities. Subd. 11. Flush Water Closet. A toilet with a bow1 and trap made in one piece, which is connected to the City water and sewer system or other approved water supply and sewer system. Subd. 12. Garbage. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 13. ffabitable Building. Any building or part thereof that meets minimum standards for use as a home or place of abode by one or more persons. Subd. 14. ffabitabl~ Space (Room). Space ina structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space. Subd. 15. ffeate~ Ware[. Water heated to a temperature of not less than ll0 degrees Fahrenheit, or such temperature required by government authority, measured at faucet outlet. Subd. 16. Kitchen. A space which contains a sink with counter working space, space for installing cooking and refrigeration equipment, and space for the storage of cooking utensils. Subd. 17. Maintenance. Upkeep of property and equipment in a safe working condition for which it was installed and/or constructed. Subd. 18. Multiple Familypwe}l~nqs. Adwellingor portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units. A building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by three (3) or more families living independently of each other, but sharing hallways, main entrances and exits. Subd. 19. Occupant. Any person (including owner or operator) living, sleeping, cooking and eating in a dwelling unit or living and sleeping in a rooming unit. Subd. 20. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term "operate" means to charge a rental charge for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. ~,-~ ~.~¢ as 5~c~(~14q~ ',~ , ~ Subd. 21. Operator. The owner or the owner's agent who has charge, care, control, or management of a building, or part thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let. Subd. 22. Owner. Any person, firm or corporation who, alone, jointly, or severally with others, shall be in actual possession of, or have charge, care or control of, any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit within the City as owner, employee Or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. Any person representing the actual owner shall be bound to comply with the provisions of this ordinance to the same extent as the owne.. Subd. 23. 'sEe~p_/_~c/_~Le Occupancy. The maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit. Subd. 24. ~. An Individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or joint venture or organization of any kind. Subd. 25. Plumbing. All of the following supplied facilities and equipment in apdwelling= gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam ipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents, and any other similar fixtures and the installation thereof, together with all connections to water, sewer and gas lines. Subd. 26. Premises. A platted lot or part thereof or unplatted parcel of land, and adjacent right-of-way either occupied or unoccupied by any dwelling or non-dwelling structure, including such building or accessory structures. Subd. 27. Public,al!. Ahall, corridor or passageway for providing egress from a dwelling unit to a public way and not within the exclusive control of one family. Subd. 28. Refuse. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of th. City Code. Subd. 29. ~ Dwelling. As used in this ordinance the t m u · u . er rentaldwell~flg shall mean anydwell~ngrentedor leased toaperson or persons other than the owner with one or more dwelling units. 'Rental dwelling' does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. ' Subd. 30. Repair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building or its utilities, facilities or equipment for the purpose of its maintenance. Subd. 31. Rodent ~arboraqe. A place where rodents commonly live, nest, or establish their habitat. Subd. 32. Rooming ~ni~. Any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking and eating purposes. Subd. 33. Rubbish. City Code. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the Subd. 34. Safety. The condition of being unreasonably free from danger and hazards which may cause accidents or disease. Subd. 35. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a -4- building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceilingor roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined herein for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. Subd. 36. Story. First. The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. Subd. 37. Substandard Dwelling. Any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by City ordinances. Subd. 38. Supp}ied. Paid for, furnished by, provided by or under the control of the owner, operator, or agent of a dwelling. Subd. 39. Meaning off, train Words. Whenever the words 'dwelling", "dwelling unit', 'premises', or 'structure' are used in this ordinance, they shall be construed as though they were followed by the words 'or any part thereof.' Section 319:15. Responsibilities of Owner~ and Occupants. No owner or other person shall let to another person any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit unless it and the premises are fit for human occupancy and comply with all applicable legal requirements of the State of Minnesota and the City of Mound, and as set forth specifically in the following sections. Subd. l. Maintenapce of Shared or Public Areas. Every owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall maintain or shall provide for maintenance of the units shared or public areas of the dwelling and premises thereof. Subd. 2. Mainten~nc9 of Occupied Area~. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall maintain that part of the dwelling, dwelling unit and premises thereof that he or she occupies and controls. Subd. 3. Storage and Disposal of Rubbish. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall store and dispose of all his or her rubbish and garbage and any other organic waste which might provide food for insects and/or rodents in a manner as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 4. Respopsibility for Storage and Disposal of Garbage and ~ub~ish. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, or dwelling, two family town home or a multiple family dwelling shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of rubbish and garbage. In the case of single or two-family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to furnish such facilities as prescribed by ~ection 490 of the City Code. Subd. 5. Responsibilityfo~$torp and~reenD__99i~andn~. The owner of a rental dwelling unit shall be responsible for providing, maintaining and hanging all screens and storm doors and storm windows whenever the same are required under the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 6. Responsibility for Pest ~xtermination. Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit shall be responsible for the extermination of vermin infestations and/or rodents on the premises. Every occupant of a dwelling unit tn a dwelling containing more than one dwelling unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever his/her dwelling unit is the only one infested. Notwithstanding, however, whenever infestation is caused by the failure of the owner to maintain a dwelling in a reasonably rodent-proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever infestation exists in two or more of the dwelling units in any dwelling or in the shared or public parts of any dwelling containing two or more dwelling units, extermination thereof ~hall be the responsibility of the owner. Subd. 7. Rodent harborages Prohibited J~l ~ Areas. No occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall accumulate boxes, firewood, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about any dwelling or dwelling unit. Outside stored materials shall be stacked neatly f piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. 8. Rodent j/~Prohibited tn~lj~~. No owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units shall accumulate or permit the accumulation of boxes, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about shared or public areas of a dwelling or its premises. Materials stored outside by the owner or permitted to be stored by the owner shall be stacked neatly in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Subd. 9. prevgntioo of Food for Rodents. No owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall store, place or allow to accumulate any materials that may serve as food for rodents in a site accessible to rodents. Subd. 10. Maintenanc9 of Plumbing Fixturg~ and Facilities. The owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall maintain all supplied plumbing fixtures and facilities therein. Subd. 11. Minimum Beating Capability and Maintenance. In every dwelling unit or rooming unit when the control of the supplied heat is the responsib]ity of a person other than the occupant, a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit or such lesser temperature required by government authority shall be maintained at a distance of three feet above the floor and three feet from exterior walls in al' habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments fro~ September 15 to Nay 1. Subd. 12. The owner of any rental dwelling shall be responsible for the removal of snow and ice from parking lots and/or driveways, steps and walkways on the premises. Individual snowfalls of three inches or more or successive snowfalls accumulating to a depth of three inches shall be removed from walkways and steps within 48 hours after cessation of the snowfall. SubS. 13. MinimpmExterig[Lighting. The owner ora rental dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining effective illumination in all exterior parking areas and walkways. Subd. 14. Maintenapc~ofPrivinq ~nd ParkinqAreas. The owner of a rental dwelling, two family, or a dwelling, t~o family town home or a multiple family dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved and delineated parking areas and driveways for tenants. Subd. 15. Owner/Occupapt Responsibilities De i__~. Every owner remains liable for violations of duties imposed upon them by this Code even though an obligation is also imposed on the occupants of their building, and even though the owner has, by agreement, Imposed on the occupant the duty of furnishing required equipment or of complying with this Code. Every owner, or their agent, in addition to being responsible for maintaining their building in a sound structural condition, shall be responsible for keeping that part of the building or premises which they occupy or control in a clean, sanitary and safe condition. Every occupan~of a dwelling unit, in addition to being responsible for keeping the dwelling or dwelling unit or premises which they occupy and control, in a clean, sanitary and safe condition, shall dispose of all rubbish, garbage and other organic waste in a manner required by law. All occupants shall keep their premises in a safe and sanitary condition. Section 319:20. Minimum Standards for Basig Equipment ~nd Facilities. No person shall rent or let to another for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking and eating therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Provide a kitchen sink in good working condition and properly connected to an approved water supply system and which provides at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and wbich is connected to an approved sewer system per Section 600 and/or 300 or 305 of the City Code. Subd. 2. Provide cabinets and/or shelves for the storage of eating, drinking and cooking equipment and utensils and of food that does not require refrigeration for safekeepingl and a counter or table for food preparation. Said cabinets and/or shelves and counter or table shall be of sound construction furnished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will not impart any toxic or deleterious effect to food. -7- Subd. 3. Provide a stove or similar device for cooking food and refrigerator or similar device for the safe storage of food which are properly installed with all necessary connections for safe, sanitary and efficient operation. Provided that such stove, refrigerator or similar devices need not be installed when a dwelling unit ts not occupied and when the occupant is expected to provide same on occupancy, in which case sufficient space and adequate connections for the installation and operation of said stove, refrigerator or similar device must be provided. Subd. 4. Every dwelling unitshallhave at least four (4) square feet of floor area to ceiling closet space for personal effects of each permissible occupant. If it is lacking in whole or in part, an amount of space equal in square footage to the deficiency shall be subtracted from the area of habitable room space used to determine permissible occupancy. Subd. 5. ~Facilitie~. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is'equipped with a flush water Closet in compliance with Minnesota State Plumbing Code. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said flush water closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable surfaces, shall be connected to an approved water system that at all times provides an adequate amount of running water under pressure to cause the water closet to be operated properly, and shall be connected to a sewer system i compliance with Sections 300, 305, and 600 of the City Code. Subd. $. Lavatory Sink. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory sink. Saidlavatorysinkmaybe in the same room as theflush water closet, or if located in another room, the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which said water closet is located. The lavatory sink shall be in good working condition and Shall be properly connected to an approved water system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Subd. 7. Bathtub pxShower. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working condition. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or in another room, and shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system. Section 319:25. F~e_p_9_lg_lRequi~ement~. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: IO0 Subd. 1. Foundations. Exterior ~ and Roofs. The foundation, exterior walls and exterior roof shall be substantially water tight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. ?he foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior vail shall be free of structural deterioration or any other condition which right admit rain or dampness to the interior portion of the walls or to the interior spaces of the dwelling. The roof shall be tight and have no defects which admit rain and roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rain water from causing dampness in the walls. All exterior surfaces, other than decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance Official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. If approximately 10% or more of the total exterior surface of the pointing of any brick, block or stone wall is loose or has fallen out, the surface shall be repaired. Subd. 2. Windows, Poors pnd ~creens. Every window, exterior door and hatchway shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in repair. Every window other than a fixed window or storm window shall be.capable of being easily opened. Every window, door and frame shall be constructed and maintained in such relation to the adjacent wall construction as to completely exclude rain, vermin and rodents from entering the building. Every window which can be opened shall be supplied with sixteen (16) mesh screens during the months of May through September to keep out insects. Subd. 3. Floors, Interior Walls ~ Ceiling6. Every floor, interior wall and ceilings shall be protected against the passage and harborage of vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair. Every floor shall be free of loose, warped, protruding or rotted flooring materials. Every interior wall and ceiling shall be maintained in a tight weatherproof condition. Toxic paint and materials with a lasting toxic effect shall not be used. Every toilet room and bathroom floor surface shall be capable of being easily maintained. Subd. 4. Rodent Resistant. Buildings found to be rodent infested shall be made rodent resistant. All openings in the exterior walls, foundations, basements, ground or first floors and roofs which have a 1/2" diameter or larger opening shall be made rodent-resistant in an approved manner. Interior floors or basements, cellars, and other areas in contact with the soil shall be paved with concrete or other rodent impervious material. Subd. 5. FenceMaipten~ncg. All fences shall consist of chain link, wood, masonry or other decay resistant material. Fences shall be maintained in good condition by the Owner. Materials, other than decay resistant varieties, shall be protected against decay by use of paint or other preservatives. Sub4. 6. Accesso;y FfLL~ Maintenance. Accessory structures shall be structurally sound and be maintained in good repair. The exterior of such structures shall be made weather resistant through the use of decay-resistant materials such as point or other preservatives. If approximately lOt or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks a protective coating or is determined by the Compliance Official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. Subd. 7. ~afe Building Elements. Every foundation, floor, roof, exterior and interior wall, ceilings, and every appurtenance thereto of a rental dwelling shall be safe to use and capable of supporting loads that normal use may cause to be placed thereon. be Every stairway, inside or outside, of a rental dwelling and every porch or balcony shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. Every flight of stairs and every porch and balcony floor shall be free of deterioration. Every stairwell and every flight ~f stairs which is more than two (2) risers high shall have handrails approximately thirty (30) to thirty-eight (38) inches high, measured vertically from the nose of the stair tread to the top of the handrail. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and 9laze, sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than thirty (30) inches above grade or floor level, and roofs used for other than service of the building, shall be protected by a guard rail not less than forty-two (42) inches in height. Open guard rail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere six (6) inches in diameter cannot pass through. Exceptions to guard rail requirements shall be accommodated as provided for in the Minnesota State Codes. Every handrail and balustrade shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. No flight of stairs shall have settled out of its intended position or have pulled away from the supporting or adjacent structures enough to cause a hazard. No flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose, or deteriorating supports. e Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be uniform in width and height. CO Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of tw~ hundred (200) pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least -10- one (l) operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue. The units shall be operable from the tnside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate 1. All egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms sba1! bare a total glazed area of at least five (5) square feet. ?be smallest net clear opening for each such window shall be twenty (20) inches in width by twenty-four (24) inches in height. Where windows are provided as a means of escape or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height not more than forty- eight (48) inches above the floor. Any such window replaced or newly installed shall be done so in accordance with Section 300 of the Mound Ordinance Code and the Codes adopted by reference therein. All dwellings shall have ihcorporated into their design approved systems which serve to reduce the possibility of a dwelling fire and also effectively contain the fire in the event it does occur. Subd. 8. ~ to Funct~op. All equipment or utilities required under City ordinances and every chimney and flue shall function effectively in a safe working condition. Subd. 9. Grading and ip_~. Every yard, court, or passageway on the premises on which a dwelling stands shall be graded and drained so as to be free of standing water that constitutes a detriment to health and safety. Subd. 10. 7~rd Cove[. Every yard to a premise on which a dwelling stands shall be maintained to prevent dust and erosion. Subd. 11. Minimum Ceiling ~eiqht. In order to qualify as habitable rooms of rental dwellings and rental dwelling units, rooms shall have a clear ceiling height of not ]ess than seven (7) feet, except that in attics or topbalf-stories used for sleeping, study or similar activities, the ceiling height shall be not ]ess than seven (7) feet, over at least one half (1/2) of the floor area. In calculating the floor area of such rooms in attics or tophalf-stories, only those portions of the floor area of the room having a clear ceiling height of five (5) feet or more may be included. Subd. 12. Access Through Sleeping Rooms and Bathrooms. No rental dwelling unit shall have a room arrangement such that access to the unit itself or to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one dwelling unit can be gained only by going through another dwelling, nor shall the room arrangement be such that access to a sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room. A bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageway to any habitable room, hall, basement, or cellar or to the exterior of any dwelling unit. -11- lOO8 Section 319=30. Door and Window Locks. No owner shall rent or let tv another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors of the dwelling or dwelling unit are equipped with safe, functioning locking devices. Rental dwellings shall be furnished with door locks as follows: Subd. 1. For the purpose of providing a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple family dwellings, an approved security system shall be maintained for each multiple family building to control access. The security system shall consist of locked building entrances or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways into individual dwelling units. Dead-latch type door locks shall be provided with releasable lever knobs (or doorknobs) on the inside of building entrance doors and with key cylinders devices on the outside of building entrance doors. Building entrance door latches shall be of a type that are permanently locked from the outside and permanently unlocked from the inside. Subd. 2. Every door that provides ingress or egress for a dwelling unit wi%bin a multiple family building shall be equipped with an approved lock that has a deadlocking bolt that cannot be retracted by end pressure, provided, however, that such door shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. Subd. 3. Every window opening within eight (8) feet of finished ya~ grade shall be equipped with locking devices to secure the window in a closed position. Section 319~35. Ninimum Standards for Light and Ventilation. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: All habitable .rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural light by means of exterior 9lazed openings with an area not less than 1/12 (8 1/3%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of eight (8) square feet. All habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with an area of not less than 1/25 (4%) of the floor area of such rooms with a minimum of four (4) square feet. Every bathroom and water closet compartment, and every laundry and utility room, shall contain at least 50% of the light an d ventilation requirement for habitable rooms, except that no windows shall be required if such rooms are equipped with a ventilation system which is approved by the Compliance Official. Section 319:40. F~lectric~Outlets ~nd F~xtures. Everydwellin9 unit and all public and common areas shall be supplied with electric service, functioning overcurrent protection devices, electric outlets, and electric fixtures which are properly installed, which shall be maintained in a safe working condition, and shall be connected to a source of electric power in a manner prescribed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City of Mound and by the laws of the State of Minnesota The minimum capacity of such electric service and the minimum number o! electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows~ Subd. 1. A dwelling containing one or two dwelling units shall have [0o at least the equivalent of 60 ampere, three-wire electric service per dwell tng unit. Subd. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each 600 sguare feet of dwelling unit floor area. Subd. 3. Every habitable room shall have at least one floor or wall- type electric convenience outlet for each 60 square feet or fraction thereof of total floor area, and in no case less than two such electric outlets; provided, however, that one ceiling or wall-type light fixture may be supplied in lieu of one required electric outlet. Subd. 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture and every bathroom, kitchen and laundry room shall contain at least one electric convenience outlet. Subd. 5. Every public hall and stairway in pvery rental dwelling shall be adequately lighted by natural or electric light at all timeR, so as to provide effectiveillumination. Everypublicball and stair in structures containing not more than two dwelling units may be supplied with conveniently located light switches controlling an adequate lighting system which may be turned on when needed, instead of full-time light. Subd. 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling unit shall be located near the point of entrance to such unit. Section 319:45. Minimum Thermal Standards. Subd. 1. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not have heating facilities which are properly installed and maintained in safe and working condition and which are capable of safely heating all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments in every dwelling unit located therein to a temperature of at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a distance of three feet above floor level and three feet from exterior walls at normal weather condition. Subd. 2. Gas or electric appliances designed primarily for cooking or water heating purposes shall not be considered as heating facilities within the meaning of this section. Subd. 3. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirement of this section and is prohibited. Subd. 4. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or usea space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. Section 319:50. built before 197S #interizinq. Owners of residential rental properties that are occupied from November 1 through April I are required to comply with energy-efficiency standards in compliance Minnesota State Statute 4170,4100 and this ordinance. These standards are established to require minimum winterizing as follows: Subd. 1. Install storm windows on all single glazed exterior window units enclosing heated spaces. Subd. 2. Install storm doors, unless the existing door, vestibule or enclosed porch provides an R-value of two or more. Subd. 3. stoves. Install positive shut offs on all fireplaces and fireplace Subd. 4. Install insulation in accessible attics or ceilings to achieve a minimum total "R" value of the insulation of R-19. If there is insufficient space for the installation of the recommended "R" value, then the standard must be based on installing insulation to fill the available space while providing for appropriate ventilation. Subd. 5. Install insulation in all accessible rim joists to achieve a minimum total R-value of the insulation of R-11. Subd. 6. Install insulation in or on accessible wails and floors enclosing conditioned spaces to achieve a minimum total "R= value of the insulation of R-11. If there is insufficient space for t' installation of the recommended "R" value, then the standard must b, based on installing insulation to fill the available space. Subd. 7. Install weather-stripping between exterior operable window sash and frames and between exterior doors and frames. Weather- stripping is not required on storm doors or storm windows. Subd. 8. Caulk, gasket or otherwise seal all accessible exterior joints including: at foundation and rim joist, around window and door frames, between wall and roof, at utility penetrations, between wall panels, and all other openings in the exterior envelope. These standards apply to all rental housing units, including apartment buildings and one and two-familyhomes. Additionaloptionsare available under Minnesota State Rules 4170.4100 provisions. Section 319:55. FiFe Protection. Effective date: within 18 months after the effective date of this City Code Section adoption. Plans for compliance shall be submitted and approved, and within 18 months thereafter the work shall be completed or the building shall be vacated until made to conform. The building shall conform to the code under which it was constructed after the adoption of the 1972 State Building Code. I011 Subd. 1. Number of Exits, Every occupied floor above the first story shall have access to at least two separate exits, one of whi¢ may be an exterior fire escape complying with Subd. 2 of this section. Subject to the approval of the Compliance Official, an approved ladder device may be used in lieu of a fire escape when the construction feature or location of the building on the property make the installation of & fire escape impracticable. EXCEPTION: occupancies, second stories With an occupant load of 10 or have one exit. In all less may An exit ladder device when used in lieu of a fire escape shall conform with Appendix A, and the following: Serves an occupant load of 10 or less or a single dwelling unit or guest room. b. The building does not exceed three stories in height. c. The access is adjacent to an opening as specified for emergency egress or rescue or from a balcony. de Shall not pass in front of any building opening below the unit being served. The availability of activating the device for the ladder is accessible only from the opening or balcony served. $o installed that it will not cause a person using it to be within 6 feet of exposed electrical wiring. Subd. 2. Stair Construction. All required stairs shall have a minimum run of 9 inches and a maximum rise of 8 inches and shall have a minimum width of 30 inches exclusive of handrails. Every stairway shall have at least one handrail. A landing having a minimum 30-inch run in the direction of travel shall be provided at each point of access to the stairway. Exterior stairs shall be of non-combustible construction. EXCEPTION: On buildings of Types III, IV, and V as defined in the Uniform Building Code, provided the exterior stairs are constructed of wood not less than 2-inch nominal thickness. Subd. 3. Corridors. In multiple dwelling occupancies serving as an exit for an occupant load of 30 or more as determined by the Uniform Fire Code, walls and ceilings shall be of not less than one-hour fire resistive construction, existing walls surfaced with wood lath and plaster in good condition or 1/2 inch gypsum wallboard or opening with fixed wire glass set in steel frames are permitted for corridor wall and ceiling and occupancy separations when approved by administrative authority. Openings. Corridor walls shall be protected byatight-fitting smoke and draft-copntrol assembly having a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested in accordance with their listing. The door and frame shall bear an approved label or other identification showing the rating thereof, the name of the manufacturer and the identification of the service conducting the inspection of materials and workmanship at the factory during fabrication and assembly. Doors shall be maintained self-closing or shall be automatic closing by actuation of a smoke detector in accordance with their liating. In lieu of a 20 minute fire assembly, & solid wood 1-3/4 inch IOIZ thick door may be used at door openings if the building perdat~ the Minnesota State Building Code of 1972. Where the existing frame will be not accommodate the 1-3/4 inch thick door, a 1-3./8 inch thick solid bonded wood core door or equivalent insulated door shall be permitted. Smoke and draft-control door assemblies shall be provided with a 9asker so installed as to provide a seal where the door meets the stop on both sides and across the top. EXCEPTIONS. 1) Viewports may be installed if they require a hole not larger than 1 inch in diameter through the door, have at least a 1/4 inch thick glass disc and the holder is of metal which will not melt out when subject to temperatures of 1700 degrees F. 2) Protection of openings in the interior walls of exterior exit balconies is not required. Openings other than doors. Interior openings for other than doors or ducts shall be protected by fixed,.approved 1/4 inch thick wired glass installed in steel frames. The total area of all openings, other than doors, in any portion of an interior corridor shall not exceed 25 percent of the area of the corridor wall of the room which it is separating from the corridor or shall be covered with a minimum of 3/4 inch plywood or 1/2 inch gypsum wallboard of equivalent material on the room side. Subd. 4. Fire Escapes. Existing fire escapes which in the opinio,, of the building official comply with the intent of this section may be used as one of the required exits. The location and anchorage of fire escapes shall be of approved design and construction. Fire escapes shall comply with the following~ a. Access from a corridor shall not be through an intervening room. All openings within 10 feet shall be protected by three-fourths- hour fire assemblies. When located within a recess or vestibule, adjacent enclosure walls shall be of not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction. Egress from the building shall be by a clear opening having a minimum dimension of not less than 29 inches. Such openings shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. The sill of an opening giving access shall be not more than 30 inches above the floor of the building or balcony. IOf de Fire escape stairways and balconies shall support the dead load plus a live load of not less than 100pounds per square foot and shall be provided with a top and intermediate handrail on each side. The pitch of the stairwayshallnotexceed60degreeswith a minimum width of 18 inches. Treads shall be not less than inches in width and the rise between treads shall not exceed 1~ inches. All stair and balcony railings shall support a horizontal force of not lesa than 50 pounds per lineal foot of Failing. -16- Balconies shall be not less than 44 inches in width with no floor opening other than the stairway opening greater than 5/8 inch in width. Stairway openings in such balconies shall be not less than 22 inches by 44 inches. The balustrade of each balcony shall be not less than 36 inches high with not more than 9 inches between balusters· Fire escapes shall extend to the roof or provide an approved 9ooseneck ladder between the top floor landing and the roof when serving buildings four or more stories in height having roofs with less than 4:12 slope. Fire escape ladders shall be designed and connected to the building to withstand a horizontal force of 100 pounds per lineal foot; each rung shall support a concentrated load of 500 pounds placed anywhere on the rung. Ail ladders shall be at least 15 inches wide, located within 12 inches of the building and shall be placed flatwise relative to the face of the building. Ladder rungs shall be 3/4 inch in diameter and shall be located 12 inches oncent~r. Openings for roof access ladders through cornices and similar projections shall have minimum dimensions of 30 inches by 33 inches. The lowest balcony shall be not more than 18 feet from the ground. Fire escapes shall extend to the ground or be provided with counterbalanced stairs reaching to the ground. he Fire escapes shall not take the place of stairways required by the codes under which the building was constructed, Fire escapes shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times and maintained in good working order, Subd. 5. Exit and Fire Escape Signs. Exit signs shall be provided as required by this code· EXCEPTION: The use of existing exit signs may be continued when approved by the building official. All doors or windows providing access to a fire escape shall be provided with fire escape signs. Subd. 6. Maintenance of fire alarm systems, exit signs, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers and all fire related equipment and installations shall be installed and maintained as provided in City Code Section 235. Subd. 7. Fire Alarms. A manual and automatic approved fire alarm system shall be installed tn apartment houses that are three or more stories in height or contain more than 15 dwelling units EXCEPTIONS: · A fire alarm system need not be installed in buildings not over two stories in height when all individual dwelling units and contiguous attic and crawl spaces are separated from each other and from public or common areas by at least one-hour fire- resistive occupancy separations and each individual dwelling unit or guest room has an exit direct to a public way, exit court be or yard, exterior stairway or exterior exit balcony. A separate fire alarm system need not be installed in buildings which are protected throughout by an approved supervised fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No. 36-1 and having a local alarm to notify all occupants. For the purposes of this section, area separation walls as defined in the 1988 Building Code shall not define separate buildings. Subd. 8. Smoke Detectors. General. Dwelling units that are used for sleeping purposes shall be provided with smoke detectors. Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the approved manufacturer's instructions. be Ce Location Within Dwelling UnitsJ Detectors shallbemounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. ~hen the dwelling unit has more than one story and in dwellings with basements, a detector shall be installed on each story and in the basement. In dwelling units where a story or basement is spli~ into two levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on tt upper level, except that when the lower level contains a sleeping area, a detector shall be installed on each level. When sleeping rooms are on an upper level, the detector shall be placed at the ceiling of the upper level in close proximity to the stairway. Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the dwelling unit in which they are located. Power Source. In every multiple dwelling, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring. #iring shall be permanent and without a disconnecting switch other than those required for over-current protection. Smoke detectors may be battery operated when installed in two rental units or less unless additions, alterations or repairs are made which would be regulated by the Minnesota State Building Code. I0 ¢ Section 319:60. Maximum Density, Minimum ~pace, For n~ 0nits. No person shall permit or let to be occupied any rental dwelling for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Subd. 1. Permissible ~Ccupancy of p~ellinq pnit. The maximum permissibl~occupancy of any rental dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: ae For the first occupant, 150 square feet of habitable room fleet space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least 100 square feet of habitable room floor space. -18- In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two times the number of habitable rooms, less kitchen, in the dwelling unit. Subd. 2. One Family Per Dwelling Unit. Not more than one family, except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling unit. Section 319:65. Enforc~m~pt pn0)nspectipnAuthority. The City Manager and his/her designated agents shall be the Compliance Official who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance when reason exists to believe that a violation of this ordinance has been or is being committed. Inspectionsshallbeconductedduring reasonablehoursandtbe Compliance Official shall present evidence of his/her official capacity to the owner or occupant in charge of a dwelling unit. Section 319~70. Inspection Access. The Compliance Official shall make a reasonable attempt to contact the Occupant and the Owner to arrange inspections. If any owne~, occupant, or other person in charge of a dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or of a multiple dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the structure or premisesunder his/her control, or any part thereof, with respect to which an inspection authorized by this ordinance is sought to be made, the Compliance Official may, upon a showing that probable cause exists for the inspection and for the issuance of an order directing compliance with the inspection requirements of this section with respect to such dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or multiple dwelling, petition and obtain such order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 319~75. Unfit f~[ Buman Babitatioq. Subd. 1. Any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested or which lacks provision for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary facilities to tbs extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the public may be declared unfit for human habitation. lihenever any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit bas been declared unfit for human habitation, the Compliance Official $hall order same vacated within a reasonable time and shall post a placard on same indicating that it is unfit for human habitation, and any operating license previously issued for such dwelling shall be revoked pursuant to law. Subd. 2. It shall be unlawful for such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or Portion thereof to be used for human habitation until the defective conditions have been corrected and written approval has been issued by the ComplianceOfficial. It sballbeunlawful for any person to deface or remove the declaration placard from any such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit. Section 319:80. Secure Unfit and Vacated Dwelltnqs. The owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit which has been declared unfit for human habitation or which is otherwise vacant for a period of 60 days or more shall make the same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public. ?he materials used to secure building shall be painted a color which is consistent with the exterior color of the structure and does not constitute a public nuisance. Any vacant dwelling open at doors, windows, or wall opening, if unguarded, shall be deemed to be a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and a public nuisance within the meaning of this ordinance. Section 319:85. Bazardouo Building Declaration. In the event that a dwelling has been declared unfit for human habitation and the o~ner has not remedied the defects within a prescribed reasonable time, the dwelling may be declared a hazardous building and may be removed, razed or corrected pursuant to the provisions of #inn.sots Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.261. Section 319:90. Compllpnc~ Order. Whenever the Compliance Official determines that any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof is in violation of this or any other ordinance, he/she may issue a Complianc~Order setting forth the violations of the ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator or agent to correct such violations. This Compliance Order shall: Subd. 1. Be in writing; Subd. 2. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this ordinance. Subd. 3. Establish a reasonable time for the correction of such violation and notify the owner of his/her appeal recourse. Subd. 4. Be served upon the owner or his/her agent or the occupant, as the case may require. Such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, or upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is: a. Served upon him/her personallyI or bo Sent by certified mail to his/her last known address~ or Upon failure to effect notice through (1) or (2) as set out in this section, service may be made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 463.17, Subd. 2, which reads as follows: 'Service. The order shall be served upon the o~ner of record, or the owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by postin9 it at the main entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the property and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality.' Subd. 5. Every compliance order shall be posted on the structure and noted on the structure. Section 3]9:95. E/ah~of6Rp_e~. Nhen it isa]]egedbyanypersontowhom a Compliance Order is directed that such Compliance Order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, or upon a misstatement or mistake of fact, such person may appeal the Compliance Order to a Board of Appeals and Adjustments as established by Section 23.502 of the City Code. ?he Planning Commission as an advisory body shall forward their recommendation to the City Council as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in the manner set forth in Section 23.502. Such appeals must be in writing, must specify the grounds for the appeal, must be accompanied by a filing fee as designated by the City Council in cash or cashier's check, and must be filed with the Compliance official within five (5) business days after service of the Compliance Order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health or property. Section 319:100. ~ 9~ ~ c~9~L~. Upon at least five (5) business days' notice to the appellant of the time and place fol~ hearing the appeal and within 30 days after said appeal is filed, the Board of Appeals shall hold a hearing thereon. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council as the Board of Appeals that the order be reversed, modified or affirmed in whole or in part. Section 319,105. Restrictions, 921 a R~ unlawful for the owner of any d~elltn~ /~flg-L~Lll. It shall be lng unit or rooming unit upon whom a pending compliance order has been served to sell, transfer, mortgage or lease or otherwise dispose thereof to another person until the provisions of the compliance order have been complied with, unless such owner shall furnish to the grantee, lessee or mortgagee a true copy of any notice of violation or compliance order and shall obtain and possess a receipt of acknowledgement. Anyone securing an interest in the dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit who has received notice of the existence of a Compliance Order shall be bound by same without further service of notice upon him/her and shall be liable to all penalties and procedures provided by this ordinance. Section 319:110. l~e_~. Any person who fails to comply with a Compliance Order after a right of appeal has expired~ and any person who fails to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, upon conviction therefor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day of such fsi]ute to comply shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 319:115. x c~F~_Eeg_u_LLgo o9_/m ~_.~ Up~.n failure to comply with a c p ~ ~ Authority. ~t w~r.n , ana no appeal having been taken, or upon failu in the ti.m.e set there~n, re to comply with a modified Compliance Order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the City Council after due notice to the owner may by resolution cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the Compliance Order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and Section 370 of the City Code, for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Section 319.~1-1~120. Severab~!it¥ Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the rematnin9 portions of this ordinance. 'Attest.. Rayor City Clerk Adopted by City Council Published Official Newspaper ..... -22- CITY of MOUND Staff Report MA ,/WOOD '-ROAD UINI"iESOTA 55364-:687 472-I 155 6't2:472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: LEGAL: SUBJECT: April 28, 1992 City Council Meeting City Council, Applicant & Staff 0 Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~~ ' Jim Fackler, Parks Director 4729 Island View Drive - Abutting Devon Commons Carole Munson Lot 6, Block 7, Devon, PID #30-117-23 22 0054 RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT The applicant's original request for an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Permit was heard by the City Council on December 10, 1991. The applicant has now requested reconsideration of the Council,s decision to deny the request stating that the action by the Council was "arbitrary,, based on a previous decision by the Council. Staff,s position is that each particular case is separate and distinct, there is a passage of time between the separate cases, and that each and every case of construction on public lands is reviewed on its own merit and by the requirements of the codes and ordinances in effect at the time. The action taken by the Council by a 3-2 vote was to approve a 3 year Maintenance Permit for the playhouse, boathouse, stairway and retaining wall, but requiring that the new deck be removed by June 10, 1992. Staff Recommendation Staff recommendation is unchanged from December 10, 1991. JS:Dj Enclosure: Staff Report by Jon Sutherland for December 10, 1991 City Council Meeting printed on recycled paper DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT:. .LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBJECT: CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT December !0, 1991 City Council Meeting City Council, Applicant and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building OEfictal Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Lot ~ Block 7, Devon PID 30-117-23 22 0054 Construction on Public Lands Permit 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 7687 ~612,472.1155 FAX,6~2 472-0620 BACKGROUND The applicant Is seeking an after-the-Fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the improvements as listed below to remain on the dedicated public Devon Commons area. 1. Improvements observed by staff at site inspection: a. Deck· b. Stairway to lake. c. Shoreline riprap. 2. Pre-existing structures recognized by City in Resolution #78-372 (attached: COMMENTS Boathouse. Playhouse. Timber retaining wall (now hidden under deck?). This type of issue has been before previous city councils and our city attorney has written two comprehensive opinion letters stat- ing, in part, that private use of public land should be dis- couraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity. Also, that permanent structures should be removed at the earliest time. RECOMMENDATION The City Council recognizes this area of commons was donated and dedicated to the public for the public use Forever by the Tuxedo Park Company in the year 1911. printed on recycled paper StaFF Report Carole Hunson Page 2 Complete re~val oF the deck by the applicant at his or her own expense within ninety (90) days oF City Council ap- proval. The existing I~thouse and playhouse have now been brought to the attention oF city staFF and are current violations oF City Code Section 320:00 and should now be brought into con- Formance with the City Code and removed within a reasonable time as determined by the City Council· NOTE: Ren~val oF any structure on co~ns property requires a land alteration permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivi- sion 4. dSJpj RESOLUTION $92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION ~T 6248 RED OkK ROAD, MOUND TERP~CE, LOT 7, BLOCK 1, PID $14-117-24 32 0007 P&$ CABE NUMBER 92-005 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks including a 1.9 foot side yard setback which requires a 4.1 foot variance, and a detached garage that is 19.8 feet from the front property line which requires a .2 foot variance to allow construction of a conforming addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing existing nonconforming setbacks including a 1.9 foot side yard setback which requires a 4.1 foot variance, and a detached garage that is 19.8 feet from the front property line which requires a .2 foot variance to allow construction of a conforming addition at 6248 Red Oak Road, upon the following conditions: Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an updated survey identifying the ordinary high water line for Dutch Lake and further identifying the stairs and deck at the north end of the property. be The existing structure and all improvements shall comply with all applicable building and fire code regulations. The proposed drainage pattern shall be shown on the survey to ensure that the adjoining properties will not be negatively affected. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-005 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 20' x 32' addition with a basement and first floor. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 7, Block 1, Mound Terrace. PID #14-117-24 32 0007. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIB~ION April 13~ 1992 CASE NO. 92-005: BLOCK 1, MOUND {addition)· FRED SCHMUDLACH, 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7, TERRACE, PID ~14-117-24 32 0007. VARIANCR City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct an addition to an existing home. The current dwelling has a 1.9 foot side yard setback which requires a 4.1 foot variance. The property also has a detached garage that is 19.8 feet from the front property line, the garage requires a .2 foot variance. The proposed addition is totally conforming. Staff recommended approval of the variance to construct the new addition subject to the following conditions: Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an updated survey identifying the ordinary high water line for Dutch Lake and further identifying the stairs and deck at the north end of the property. The existing structure and all improvements shall comply with all applicable building and fire code regulations. Mueller expressed a concern regarding drainage, and questioned if the drainage pattern should be shown on the plan. Koegler commented that he does not foresee a problem with drainage as a result of the addition. Mueller would like to see some insurance that the drainage pattern will not be changed to negatively affect the adjoining property owner. Hanus referred to condition #2 relating to the compliance of building and fire codes. He feels this condition is written too strongly and questioned if this means the entire dwelling needs to be brought up to meet current codes. The Building Official and City Planner emphasized that the conditions states "applicable" codes which gives the Building Official the ability to use his discretion. The intent of having this condition is to ensure that the west wall of the existing structure will be modified to meet the requirements for a fire wall as it is less than 3 feet from the property line. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by #eiland to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance request with the conditions listed, and that drainage be shown not to neqatively affect the adjoining properties· Motion carried unanimously. Hanus commented that he still feels that condition #2 is written too strongly, however, he is in favor of the improvement and therefore voted in favor of the motion. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Fred Schmudlach CASE NUMBER: 92-005 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-11 LOCATION: 6248 Red Oak Road EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single-family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential B A C KG R O UN D: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct an addition to an existing home. The current dwelling has a 1.9 foot side yard setback which requires a 4.1 foot variance. 'The property also has a detached garage that is 19.8 feet from the front property line. The garage requires a .2 foot variance. The proposed addition which would approximately double the size of the current residence is totally 'conforming. A new deck is proposed on the north side of the addition'and, according to the property survey, the deck lies 65.8 feet from the "shoreline"~ The survey does not locate the 939.4 contour which is the ordinary high water line. The survey also does not include a freestanding deck between the existing home and the shoreline. It appears that this deck conforms to ordinance requirements, however, there is no record of building permit issuance for the structure. Schmudlach Planning Report 4~7~92 Page 2 COMMENT: The proposed addition conforms to all setback requirements. The only way to eliminate the side yard setback variance would be to either move the existing home or demolish the structure and build a new one. Neither of these scenarios seems realistic because the existing structure is in sound condition. The detached garage is a relatively new structure which, since no variance was issued, apparently was erroneously constructed 19.8 feet from the front property line rather than the required 20 feet. A building permit was issued for the garage construction. RECOMMENDATION: Since the proposed construction conforms to all setback requirements and it is unlikely that any of the existing non- conforming setbacks can realistically be remedied, staff recommends approval of the variance to construct the new addition subject to the following conditions: Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an updated survey identifying the ordinary high water line for Dutch Lake and further identifying the stairs and deck at the north end of the property. o The existing structure and all improvements shall comply with all applicable building and fire code regulations. VARIANCE APPL!CATIOE CZTY OP HOUND S341 HayVood Road, Hound, IO/ SS364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: - 4 Application Fee: $50.00 Ca.. o..q2-005 eeeeeeee®eoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeq --- · ~'' Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~ e~ Os -G Owner's Name ~ ~~u~ Day Phone_. ~71-0~$1 Owner,s Address &~%? ~ 0o~ ~Q ~ ~,~x _~y Applicant's Name (if other than owner) .~x~ Address .~, Day Phone_. ~7~~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 7 Addition_ /'~z;~'~¢~ 7'"¢ t'f'ac.~ PID NO. Zoning District ~-~ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, provide copies of resolutions. Block / conditional use ( ) yes, 6~ no. If resolution number(s) and TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other Dwelling ( ) Garage 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): loz. Variance ADplication Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Ye~ (), NO ~.). If ~0, ~D~eify each non-conforming u~e (~cr~ reason for v~r~ance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) Front Yard: ( ~ S]EW ) Rear Yard: (N~S'E W ) Lake Front: { N $ ~ Side Yard: ( N S -Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: required requested VARIANCE setback setback QO ! ft. }~, Z' ft. ,~ ' ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. & ' ft. I,C/- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present ~se of the property conform to all.regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If ~o, specify each non-conforminguse: 0 Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (w) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests i~ the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If ~es, explain /02 ' Variance Application Page 3 1, Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as th~ relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant' s Sign at ur e_~~~ IOz'l Certificate of Survey for. Fred Schmudlach Lot 7 Block 1 Mound Terrace Hennepin County, Mn. We hereby certify .that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on./said land~.~As surveyed by me this'~C~ day B¥~a. r d Sur eyo~r,'~nnesota License No. ?~439 MEYER-ROHLIN, INC EN(~INEER$.I,.ANO SURVE'YOR$ Hwy.. 25N., Buffalo, Minn. 55313 REVISIONS 0 · 0 -- -y t '. /0~o i: I i i ,¥ 105Z ,ID 0 ,4-: ~ 0 REBOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ~LLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DECKS AT 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD. L~tFAYETTE PJtRK, PART OF LOT 22, PID #13-117-24 21 0041, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-006 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to add two decks, each measuring 8' x 11', to an existing structure. Three variances are required: 1) recognizing an existing 2.3 foot side yard setback for the detached garage, 2) recognizing the principal structure's 47 foot setback from the ordinary high water line (OHW), and 3) an 11 foot setback variance from the OHW to the new deck at the lake side of the dwelling; and WHEREAS, the proposed attached deck on the north side of the home seems to be a reasonable use of the property. The 8 foot encroachment represents a minimum size if a deck is to be allowed; and WHEREAS, the houses on either side of the subject property currently have decks which are closer to the shoreline that what this deck is proposed to be; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby approve a 1.7 foot side yard variance to the existing detached garage, a 3 foot lakeshore setback variance for the principal structure and an 11 foot lakeshore setback variance for the proposed deck. These variances are approved to allow construction of two 8' x 11' decks at 5308 Three Points Blvd., contingent upon the condition that the well on the north side of the property be sealed according to Health Department standards. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-006 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: ae Construction of two 8' x 11' decks attached to the principal structure, one deck at the street side of the dwelling and one deck at the lake side of the dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The West Seventy-Five (?$) feet, measured parallel to the West line of the following described tract of land: That part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying north of the Township Road crossing Lot 22 in an Easterly and Westerly direction, having as an Easterly boundary a line running in a Northeasterly direction from the North line of said Township Road to the shore of Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka, at a distance of One Hundred Fifty (150) feet from the Easterly line of said Lot 22, measured at right angles from and parallel with said Easterly line of Lot 22, and as a Southerly boundary the North line of the Township Road crossing said Lot 22 in and Easterly and Westerly direction and as a Westerly boundary a line running in a Northeasterly direction from the North line of said Township Road to the shore of Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka at a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the Easterly line of said Lot 22, measured at right angles from and parallel with said Easterly line of said Lot 22, and as a Northerly boundary the shore of Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka. Also: That part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka, described as follows: Beginning at point of intersection of the shore line of Jennings Bay, Lake Minnetonka with a line parallel with and 300 feet PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 3 CASE NO. 92-006 Westerly, measured at right angles from the Easterly line of said Lot 22; thence Southerly along said parallel line to a point therein distant 49.7 feet northerly, measure4 along sai4 parallel line from the Northerly line of Township Road crossing said Lot ZZ, (now known as Wenonah Roa~); thence Northerly 4eflecting to the right 162 degrees, to sai4 shore line; thence Easterly along sai4 shore line to the point of beginning. All of the above, accor4ing to the map or plat thereof on file or of recor4 in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETINH OF THE MOUND ADVISORy PLANNINH COMMISSION April 13, 1992 c_ sz No. 92-006: ??_C_¥_NORDSTRO,, 530. aecKs . - *a-aZl-Z4 21 0041. V~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request to add two decks to an existing structure. B · 11'. This cas° · .... ~ ....... otb decks will measure 8' x .v:_~ ..... ~ ~v~¥~_~nree variances, one reco ' in an ~?~n~ z..~ ~oo~ sloe yard setback for the detac gnlz g ~?r. =ne principal structure, ~, ~ ......... hed garage, one nigh water line ~OHW% ~.~ ~is~_~u~u setbacK, from the ordinar -.,~ ~,,= proposea oecK on the north side of the property. The proposed deck is 39 feet from the OHW line. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback resulting in the request for a variance of 11 feet. Staff recommended approval of the proposed attached deck on the north side of the home as it seems to be a reasonable use of the property. The 8 foot encroachment represents a minimum size if a deck is to be allowed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 1.7 foot side yard variance, approval of the 3 foot lakeshore setback variance for the principal structure and approval of the 11 foot lakeshore setback for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck on the north side of the home. Approval is contingent upon the well on the north side of the property being sealed according to Mealth Department standards. Mueller commented that he does not see a hardship for allowing the deck on the lake side of the dwelling. It was noted that the houses on either side of the subject property currently have decks which are closer to the shoreline that what this deck is proposed to be. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance. Mueller questioned if there is a better design for the deck which could minimize the variance. The applicant commented that a walkway at the rear would be approximately 4 feet wide and she is only asking for another 4 feet more. The applicant stated that they purchased the property about one month ago and they plan to rent the dwelling. Koegler commented that the house already intrudes into the setback and he feels that to afford the owner reasonable use of the property the deck should be allowed. MOTION carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Jensen, Meyer, and Hanus. Mueller and Michael were opposed. Mueller and Michael commented that they opposed because they do not find a hardship to increase the nonconforming setback to the lakeside. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. Hoising on Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Hanning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Nancy Nordstrom CASE NUMBER: 92-006 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1m LOCATION: 5308 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single-family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to add two decks to an existing structure. Both decks will measure 8' x 11'. This case involves three variances, one recognizing an existing 2.3 foot side yard setback for the detached garage, one for the principal structure's 47 foot setback from the ordinary high water line (OHW), and the third involving the proposed deck on the north side of the property. The proposed deck is 39 feet from the ordinary high water line. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback resulting in the request for a variance of 11 feet. COMMENT: The door on the north side of the home exits onto a small platform and stairway. The existing platform and stairway does not meet code requirements due to problems with the stair risers and handrails. Under the proposal, the existing platform is to be replaced by an 8' x 11' deck. The 8 foot dimension on the deck extends in a north/south direction, encroaching into the required lakeshore setback area. 74o~ ~o E~,d. - .~i~e 34O- ~ir~po~i~. ~ 5-~9..(6~ 2) ~-~x~o · I (~ qo Nordstrom Planning Reporl 4~7~92 Page 2 Building code requires a 3 foot platform in order to provide a safe exit from the structure. Anything larger than the minimum platform size is not required for safety reasons, however, for actual use, a minimum dimension of 44 inches is recommended. Allowing a deck that encroaches 8 feet rather than a 3 foot minimum platform requires consideration of reasonable use of the property. An 8 foot dimension is a typical minimum dimension for a deck. The properties on either side of the existing structure have decks that appear to be closer to the ordinary high water line than the proposed deck. Therefore, approval of the requested variance would not be providing the applicant with rights that are not already commonly enjoyed by the abutting property owners. RE C OM MENDATIO N: Approval of the proposed attached deck on the north side of the home seems to be a reasonable use of the property. The 8 foot encroachment represents a minimum size if a deck is to be allowed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 1.7 foot side yard variance, approval of the 3 foot lakeshore setback variance for the principal structure and approval of the 11 foot lakeshore setback for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck on the north side of the home subject to the following condition: · The well on the north side of the property shall be sealed according to Health Department standards. VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND S341 Mal~rwood Road, Mound, MN SS394 Phone: 472-0600, F&x~ 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: 4-1320'~Z Application Fee: $50.00 City Council Date: 4-~% ~Z Case No. 9~--00~. Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public W~rks: Copy to city Engineer: ~, ~,"~' Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~ ¢(~ PO, ~ %~ Owner's Name~J6~ ~'7 ~'~ ~ '% ~ ~ Day Phone O~er's Address ~ O~'mc~'~ ~ ~ U ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone OEGA5 DESCRIPTION: o-C -- AdditionL~ K~qm ~ ~v~ r L PTD No./ Zoning District A-~ . Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condStj~nal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution n~mDer(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) Other /~X~Dwelling ( ) Garage Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Ap91ication Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for ~riAnce request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE setback setback Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S ~ Side Yard: ( N S Lot Size: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. % ft. /' 7 ft. ft. - ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~ No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: ® Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ( ) soil (~~) existing other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain / Variance ADDlication Page 3 Case No. qp.. ---006 Was the hardship created by any o~her man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No>4f-~ If yes, explain such as the e Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be 'equired by law. Applicant's signature Date I ? .. , ¢ .... ~oz.~7 I o ,~,~ ~. 7Z· 4Y 04" I ~ I -:"'~'~. I " :~ r · .... <-', · k ~-~. , , , ,~,,L . .. ~ ..,,.,,: i .' 2~ .,...~. ,..~, ~-_ ¢ '~' ", D~dk ' A,, IIe 59' Io~~ WENONAH ROAD I" ~ ZO' LAKE MINNETONKA (WEST ARM) I'-'1 ( JENNINGS BAY) I,,.l -~- _~ ~._.. ~.,_~_.... CERTIFICATION SCHOELL · MADSON, INC) ENQINEER8 · SURVEYOR8 .PLANNER8 * 8OIL TESTINQ CLIENT LN/qNCY' C.LOCATION ,/ RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO &PPROVE ~ VARI~CE TO~.,~O~ CONSTRUCTION OF ~ CONFOI~IN~ ~DDIT~ON ~T 4446 DENBIGH ROi%D, LOT P&S CASB NUIU~ER 92-007 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct a conforming 9' x 12' addition to the west side of the property. A 1.79 foot side yard setback variance for the principal structure and a 9.49 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage are requested; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, '6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of.record,,, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the same variances with Resolution $91-70 on May 28, 1991 to allow construction of addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Counc City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. ~? .qlty does .hereby approve a variance rec~nizi~a ex~stlng nonconforming side yard set~=~ ~ ~,ux~a~ Dul~Qlng ann an existing 7.9 foot fro~yard setback to the detached garag~ to allow construction of a conforming l 3 cDoen% ? contingent upon ~he removal of t ~ ming detached garage~by ~ay 2.8, 1993. 2. The C~ty Council authorizes the alterat~ s set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: a. Construction of a conforming 9' x 12' addition. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A V]%RIANCE TO ALLow CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 4446 DENBIGH ROI%D, LOT 1, BLOCK lv AV/%LONv PID #19-117-23 24 0001 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-007 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct a conforming 9' x 12' addition to the west side of the property. A 1.79 foot side yard setback variance for the principal structure and a 9.49 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage are requested; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all other setbacks and lot area are conforming; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the same variances with Resolution #91-70 on May 28, 1991 to allow construction of an addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. by the City Council of the NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby approve a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 4.21 feet to the principal building and an existing 7.9 foot front yard setback to the detached garage to allow construction of a conforming addition at 4446 Denbigh Road, contingent upon the removal of the existing nonconforming detached garage by May 28, 1993. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: a. Construction of a conforming 9' x 12' addition. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-007 Se e This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1~ Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0001. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. lOSt MINUTES OF A HEETIN~ OF THE NOU~D E)VISOR¥ PL~qlqI~ CO~ISSION ~pril 13, 1992 CASE NO. 92-007: MARK HANUS~ 4446 DENBIGH ROAD~ LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID ~19-117-23 24 0001. VARIANCE (addition). Commissioner Hanus removed himself from the board for this case. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request to add a 9' x 12' addition to the west side of the property. The addition will conform to required setbacks. In 1991 the applicant received a variance to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure. Under the conditions of approval a 1.79 foot side yard setback variance was granted for the principal structure and a 9.49 foot front yard setback variance was granted for an existing detached garage. According to the resolution, the garage is to be removed by May 28, 1993. Staff recommended approval of the 1.79 foot side yard setback variance and the 9.49 foot front yard garage setback variance upon the condition that the existing nonconforming detached garage be removed by May 28, 1993. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance as requested. Motion carried unanim0usly. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 17, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE GONSULTANT$ pLANNING REPQRT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Mark Hanus CASE NUMBER: 92-007 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1n LOCATION: 4446 Denbigh Road EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single-family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: In 1991, the applicant received a variance to construct an addition to an existing non-conforming structure. Under the conditions of approval, a 1.79 foot side yard setback variance was granted for the principal structure and a 9.49 foot front yard setback variance was granted for an existing detached garage. According to the resolution, the garage is to be removed within two years of the date of the variance approval (5/28/91). The current request is to add a 9 foot by 12 foot addition to the west side of the property. The addition which will conform to required setbacks will house a stairway connecting the basement level to the first floor. The proposed addition does not specifically impact either of the .previously granted variances. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed addition is consistent with the addition to the home that was approved in 1991. The 1.79 foot side yard setback variance and the 9.49 foot front yard garage setback variance are recommended for approval subject to the following condition: · The existing, non-conforming detached garage shall be removed by May 28, 1993. 7401 Metro Blvd.- Suite 340. Minneapc~s. MN 5F~139 .(61.2) 835-9960. Io53 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone= 472-0600, Fax= 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: 4-tA~ Application Fee: $50.00 City Council Date: ~-~%~Z Case No. Site Visit Scheduled: ~__~!L~ Zoning Sheet Completed: ~U~-~~ i~I !]ii! , 8,99 Copy to City.Planner: Copy to Public Works: ~ Copy to City Engineer: ~' ' Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~ ~ ~ g'~, ~ L -O Owner's Name ~6tck ~o~ Day Phone Owner ' s Address ~ c~ ¢_ cu % ~ ~- o ~ ~_ '--/7(--, Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Lot DESCRIPTION: Addition /] Zoning District Block PIP No. /~-/~7-2.~ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, provide copies of resolutions. conditional use (~) yes, ( ) no. If resolution number(s) and variance, TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: Dwelling ( ) Garage ( ) Other 1. Detailed descripton of proposed coostruction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~JJ q ?; X Il' on~ $%¢~,-~ ~([.%.~,~ les Variance Application Page 2 Case No... 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE setback setback Front Yard: (~SE W ) 2~ ft. /~,~! ft. ?. ¥9 ft. Rear Yard: ( E W ) 15- ft. ~,! ft. ft. Lake Front: (~ S E W ) ~O ft. ~/.~ ft. --- ft. Side Yard: ( N S d~W ) ~ ft. ~.21 ft. /.7~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~) ~ ft. 7.90 ft. ~ ft. Lot Size: ~OOO sq ft 79~& sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If specify each non-conforming use: e Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe: ( ~ topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape (~<) other: specify 5. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~-007 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (>~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? C L I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be lequired bY law' ~~---~4~ Ap~lica.t's sig.atur. Dat. /~ ~p ~ ADVANCE SURVEY1HG & DIGINEERING CO. ~ August 11, 1988 ~= I, ~lock 1, AVA~N, Ilonnepin County, H~nnl~o=a, =oge=her wl2h said ~C 2. , ...... . _ /~ --.~~ NEIGHBORS RETAINING WALLS 105~& I O-fEZ q- U3 C) 1 i 0 >- ._1 lie Z i-- / -, LO Ld 0 0 O_ Z 0 0 Z ~ 0 ~'- -- ~ 0 Z >- ~ < < CE <WCOJ n' 0 CE Z ~ D < >- D ~ nS F- 0 Fr 0 t-3(D mx - NNU'I _ <Il n- ~ ~-- od N o z I z uJ O~X ~ ~ X Z 0 ZO._J X × I 0 v. 0 0 Z ~ Ld ~ 0 ~ 0 0 _l b_ Z 0 ~ 0 III _J Z 0 0 (._D Z I--- 0 0 L_ Z NEW POOTIN®S 0 Z 0 0 Z 09 Z 0 0 I TO EXISTING ~ BACjEMENT DN -7 IGR AT 5/4- - 2XI2 8.4- '' PER TREAD% STRINGERS I 0 >- I 119 May 28, 1991 RESOLUTION #91-70 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNINO COHNISSION TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFOP,~ING SETBACKS FOR Lot 1, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-~17-23 24 0001 (4446 Denbigh Road) P&Z CASE NO. 91-008 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback from the principal building to the east side property line of 4.21 feet and a nonconforming detached garage setback 10.51 feet from the front property line for Lot 1 Block 1, Avalon PID #19-117-23 24 0001, and; ' , WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing construction of a conforming 29' x 17' two story addition, and a 20' x 26' second story addition onto the existing structure, and; · WHEREAS, the subject propert is loc · . Single Famil Zoni ~ n~.~:~ ..~_~ Y . ated within the R-2 ~qu~res a lot area of 6 , uu ~qu~re r~et, a.15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water of 929.4, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "lots of reco~,,, and a 20 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, there is a nonconforming workshop below grade at the lakeside of the dwelling setback approximately 39.6 feet from the Ordinary High Water elevation which the owner proposes .to remove, and; WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, 9onconforming residential property when the alterations will ~mprove the livability thereof, but the alteration may not Increase the number of units, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has rev' request and does recommend a . .lewed the pproval due to practical difficulty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks for the property located at 4446 Denbigh Road, Lot 1, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0001 contingent upon the following conditions: ' 120 May 28, 1991 a) The Planning Commission finds that a condition of practical difficulty exists in the strict interpretation of the Zoning Code relative to this property. b) A side yard setback variance of 1.79 feet is hereby granted for the addition of a second story and an addition to the south side of the existing home with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions of the Zoning Code. c) A front yard setback variance of 9.49 feet is hereby granted for the existing accessory building garage with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions of the Zoning Code. This detached qaraqe is to be removed from the property within two years from the date of approval of the variance. d) The Planning Commission recognizes a potential situation relating to the lakeshore property which is City owned, and of which the applicant has installed a dock on this City property. The Planning Commission refers this matter to the City Council for the appropriate action. The City Council authorizes the violations and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to SeCtion 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. To construct a conforming 29' x 17' two story addition, and a 20' x 26' second story addition onto the existing structure which will have a nonconforming side yard setback of 4.21 feet and a conforming lakeshore setback after removal of the workshop/concrete slab at the lakeside. Inspection, by the Building Official, of the lakeside area after removal of the workshop/concrete slab to be done prior to any addition construction. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: 121 May 28, 1991 Lot 1, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0001. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Mayor PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- 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 BOAT HOUSE AT 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 13, 14, 15, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 44 0005 PaS CASE NUMBER 92-008 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to City Code Section 330:15, Subd. 10 to allow construction of a 12' x 22.8' boat house with the lowest floor at an elevation 1 foot below the required minimum floor elevation of 933.5; and WHEREAS, a 4 foot lakeshore setback for accessory structures is required by City Code, the proposed building will meet required setbacks; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the boat house "use" is other than "habitable,, and it is an "accessory use" versus a "principal '"use"; and WHEREAS, Mound City Code Section 330:15, Subd. 9. states, ~"Neither the Building Inspector or the City Council shall approve any permit or establish a floor elevation which is less than three ~feet above the 1965 high water level or the following designed flood elevations . . . (of) 933.5 . . . on any lots in the City i[riparian to Lake Minnetonka.,, It was noted that Mound's ordinance .~,Was~ adopted prior to construction of the Gray's Bay Dam; and : WHEREAS, the applicant could raise the floor elevation of the boat house to a minimum of 933.5 and have a conforming structure; .land WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code i. requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation; and WHEREAS, all setbacks to existing structures and lot area are ~conforming; and '. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with 4 voting in favor and 3 opposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-008 The City does hereby approve a 1 foot variance to the required minimum floor elevation of 933.5 for structures abutting lake Minnetonka to allow construction of boat house, upon the condition that the electrical and mechanical devices be located above the 933.5 elevation. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: ae Construction of a 12' x 22.8' boat house, approximately 9.5 feet in height, with conforming setbacks and a lowest floor elevation of 932.5. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 2, "The Highlands", except that Part of Lot 13 lying Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the Northeasterly line thereof distant 293.4 feet Southeasterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 13 to a Point on the Northwesterly line thereof distant 14 feet Southwesterly, as measured along said Northwesterly line, from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 13, according to the recorded plat thereof. PID #23-117-24 44 0005. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. KINUTB8 OF A MEETING OF THB NOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COHHISSION April 13, 1992 ~ASE NO. 92-008~ HARLE8 CHA8 · 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD. LOT8 3 4 S LOC 2 HB HIGHLAND8 PID 23-1 7- 4 000 . V IANCB boathouse . City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to reconstruct an existing boathouse.' Reconstruction of the boathouse was originally started without building permit. A variance is sought to allow construction of ~ boathouse measuring 12' x 22.8'. The proposed structure will have a total height of approximately 9.5 feet. Under current code, Mound requires a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 and a 4 foot lakeshore setback for accessory structures. The proposed building will meet required setbacks. The proposed structure has a floor elevation of 932.5 which is 1 foot under the elevation required in Section 330:15, Subd. 10 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant is seeking a i foot variance from the required elevation of 933.5. Regulations from other nearby cities were reviewed. How much protection is necessary for this structure? A number of cities and the Watershed District recommend two feet above the 100 year flood elevation of 931.5, as does Mound. Staff recommended denial of the request for a one foot variance from the minimum floor elevation for the boathouse on property located at 5308 Grandview Blvd. If denial is sustained by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant can proceed with the project by raising the floor elevation to a minimum of 933.5 after obtaining required permits. Mueller commented that requiring a floor elevation of 933.5 is understandable for a habitable dwelling, but this is a water T[iented structure, does this not constitute practical difficulty? was suggested that if the variance is approved, the electrical and mechanical devices be placed above the 933.5. The proposed elevation is still one foot above the FEMA requirement. The applicant commented that the subject structure has beenthrough two 100 year flood storms and has never had water in it. The Building Official referred to Mound City Code Section 330:15, Subd. 9. which states, "Neither the Building Inspector or the City Council shall approve any permit or establish a floor elevation which is less than three feet above the 1965 high water level or the following designed flood elevations . 933.5 . · on any lots in the City riparian to Lake Minneton~a.%, It was noted that Mound's ordinance was adopted prior to construction of the Gray's Bay Dam. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mualler to recommend approval of the 1 foot variance in elevation recognizing that the structure use is other than habitable and it is an accessory usa versus a principal use. Approval is contingent upon the electrical and mechanical devices being located above the 933.5 elevation. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapaaddle, Noyer, Hanus and Nualler. Those opposed were: Weiland, Jensen and Nlchael. Jensen and Michael commented that they feel the language in the ordinance is too strongly written to not deny the request. Weiland agreed, he also commented that he opposes because a building permit should have been obtained prior to commencing work on the structure. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Charles Chase, Jr. CASE NUMBER: 92-008 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1o LOCATION: 3048 Highland Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single-family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to reconstruct an existing boathouse. When the project began, the intent was to repair an existing structure. However, in the early stage 'of construction, it became apparent that the old structure had deteriorated to the point that reconstruction was not feasible. According to the applicant, the structure actually collapsed. Therefore, the old boathouse was removed and construction of a new structure began. All of the aforementioned construction was completed without a building permit. The Building Official issued a stop work order .upon receiving an anonymous complaint that building activity was occurring on the site. The property owner is seeking a variance to allow construction of a boathouse measuring 12' x 22.8'. The proposed structure will have a total height of approximately 9.5 feet. According to the applicant, the new structure will be built directly on top of the old foundation. Since the slab and walls are in place at this time, the Building Official has not been able to verify the location or condition of the old footings. 7401 Metro Blvd. - Suite 340 · kra'meapolis, MN 55439 .(61.2) 835-9960: Chase Planning Report 4/7/92 Page 2 Under the current code, Mound requires a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 and a 4 foot lakeshore setback for accessory structures (boathouses). The proposed building is located 14.3 feet from the shoreline as it existed on February 27, 1992. On March 11, 1992, the lake elevation was recorded at 930.0. Correspondingly, the proposed boathouse is located more than 4 feet from the ordinary high water line (929.4). The proposed structure has a floor elevation of 932.5 which is 1 foot under the elevation required in Section 330:15, Subd. 10 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. In the past, boathouses have been allowed in Mound on Lake Minnetonka if they met the 4 foot setback requirement and were in compliance with the 933.5 floor elevation. In this case, the applicant is seeking a 1 foot variance from the elevation requirement. COMMENT: Mound is currently preparing a new floodplain ordinance and a new shoreland ordinance. This proposal falls within what will become the regulatory domain of both of these ordinances. Since the new ordinances have not been completed or adopted to date, this proposal falls under the current floodplain regulations and under the zoning code since Mound does not presently have a shoreland ordinance. State shoreland rules permit water oriented accessory structures which includes boathouses. State rules governing boathouses (water oriented accessory structures) are included as Attachment 1. Mound's floodplain regulations are found in Section 330:15 of the Code of Ordinances. Within this section, it could be argued that several different flood elevations are actually identified. (For example, the "Flood Protection Elevation" is identified as a point not less than one foot above the water surface elevation associated with the regional flood (100-year flood). The LMCD and Minnehaha Creek Watershed district use 931.5 as the 100-year flood elevation. Correspondingly, the flood protection elevation would be 932.5.) Subdivision 10 of the same ordinance section states, "Minimum building elevation of not less than 933.5 MSL, 1929 datum, on any lots in the City riparian to Lake Minnetonka." This is the section that has historically been used by the City in requiring minimum floor elevations of 933.5. Since some confusion seems to exist in the Mound Code, other cities around Lake Minnetonka were contacted to verify flood elevations that they use. The result of the survey was additional confusion. The following results were noted: '/o3! Chase Planning Report 4/7/92 Page 3 Minnetonka - Two feet above the 100-year flood elevation of 931.5 resulting in a minimum floor elevation of 933.5. Minnetrista Minnetrista has two conflicting sections in their ordinance. Their shoreland ordinance requires a floor elevation that is 3 feet above the 100-year elevation equating to 934.5. In another section of their code, it lists minimum floor elevation at 931.5. Wayzata - According to their stormwater management plan, minimum floor elevation is 2 1/2 feet above the 100-year elevation - 934.0. Deephaven - Two feet above the 931.5 - 933.5. Orono - One foot above the 931.5 - 932.5. Orono staff stated that the City may soon consider raising the minimum floor elevation to two feet above the 100-year rather than one. Spring Park - Three feet above the ordinary high water level for Lake Minnetonka of 929.4 resulting in a minimum floor elevation of 932.4. As you can see from the above sampling from other communities, various "~ minimum floor elevations are used. One-half of the communities use an elevation that is identical to or more restrictive than Mound's use of the 933.5. The State and Federal governments require one foot of elevation above the 100-year contour. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District recommends that communities require at least 2 feet above the 100-year contour. What does all of this mean and how does it apply to the case at,/ hand? / Mound has historically used 933.5 as the minimum floor elevation for structures around Lake Minnetonka. Modification of this standard may receive additional discussion as the City assembles a new floodplain ordnance. To amend the standard at this time would be premature without further investigation of alternatives. It is unlikely that the applicant would desire to suspend continued construction of the boathouse pending the clarification of this issue which should be completed by July. Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to act on the current case. The boathouse that is the subject of this variance is new construction, it is not simply the repair of an existing facility. Had the applicant applied for a building permit as the law requires, he would have been notified of the minimum floor elevation of 933.5. Since the building is not complete, it is [077.. Chase Planning Report 4/7/92 Page 4 still possible to raise the existing floor slab elevation one foot to comply with the required 933.5 elevation. By raising the minimum floor elevation above the 100-year flood level, governmental bodies are providing a measure of flood protection for structures. The issue becomes one of how much protection is necessary. One foot seems to be a minimum, a number of cities and the watershed district recommend two feet which provides an additional measure of protection. Mound has historically used two feet and based on the information available at this time, there is no reason to deviate from this standard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request for a one foot variance from the minimum floor elevation for the boathouse on property located at 5308 Grandview Boulevard. If denial is sustained by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant can proceed with the project after including raising the floor elevation to a minimum of 933.5 and after obtaining required permits. Attachment I Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Section 5.21 of this ordinance if this water- oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: (1) the structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Deta. ched decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point; (2) the setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet; (3) the structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; (4) the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area; (5) the structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and (6) as an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: (1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commerci:d properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments; (2) landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 Io7ql YARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 5341 Ma:l~wood Ro&dv Moundv MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~Z--00~ #IR I 919~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name C% ~ ~ ~--_~a~O_ .~, Owner's Address .~)&/~ ~%[~)~/ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Day Phone Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone Addition_ Zoning District Block PTD No..?$- ~/ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, [>9 no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: (~0 Other ~a% ~J;~_ ( ) Dwelling ( ) Garage 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.) :.'~ Iff, ~ Pa~e 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: required requested VARIANCE setback setback ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. I~,'.~! ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to al~ regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes(~ , No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in,the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain ion Case No. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as th~ relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain 7. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No I~o, list some other properties which are similarly affected?~f I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applioant, s Signaturs~~~~~.~ ¢ SURVEYING INC. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I em · duly Regi$1ered Land Surveyor under the laws o! the State Olll: ]TM ~ '/~ j ~' C'"'/Reglllrallon NO. 14700 JOB # 3 ?z~ Book - Page z/-~7 /o78, P.I.D 23-117-24-44-~85 3848 Hight&nd Blvd. Hound HN 55364 Legal DescriPtion Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 2, "The Highlands", except that Part of Lot 13 t~ing Northeasterl~ of a tine d~aun Crom a Point on the Northeasterl~ tine thereo~ distant 293.4 feet 8o~theasterl¥ ~rom the most Northerly corner of said Lot 13 to Point on the Northuestert~ lt~e thereo~ distant 14 feet 8outhuestert~, as measured along said Northwesterly line, the most Northerl~ corner Of said Lot 13, according to the recorded Plat thereo~. SubJect to restrictions as to said Part of Lot 13 as contained in Book 1162 of Deeds, Page 594, Doc No. 166613?, but Cree ~roM &n~ right of ~or~eit~pe therein set ~orth. Rtso '* $! REflOLUTION ~92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND A VARIIIt~ICE FOR A LOT WITH NO STREET FRONTAGE AT 6607 & 6609 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 9 & W 1/2 OF LOT 10, HALBTED HEIGHTS, PID #22-117-24 43 0012 PAS CASE NUMBERS 92-009 & 92-010 WHEREAS, the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 9 and the west half of Lot 10, Halsted Heights, PID #22-117-24 43 0012 has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the city of Mound; and WHEREAS, the applicant's request is to change a property line that was previously established by a minor subdivision, the proposed subdivision will shift the property line separating lots one and two 80 feet to the south; and WHEREAS, in reference to a potential long term plan of extending Halstead Avenue through the proposed southern parcel, it appears that two lots could be created out of what is now lot 2, both of which would exceed 10,000 square feet in area; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, all setbacks to existing structures and lot area will be conforming. Lot 1 will have an area of 19,500 square feet and lot 2 will have an area of 28,600 square feet; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and approval was recommended with 6 voting in favor and 1 opposed; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance from the requirements of Section 330:20 (A) 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances to allow a minor subdivision and does hereby grant a variance for t PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-009 & 92-010 parcel 2 which does not have frontage on a public street. The City does also hereby approve a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as Lot 9 and the West 1/2 of Lot 10, Halsted Heights, PID #22-117-24 43 0011 & 0012. Approval is contingent upon the following: The applicant shall supply a sketch plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor identifying the potential extension of Halstead Avenue in an alignment consistent with the platted location of the street in the Halsted View Subdivision. If the corresponding land area lying between the northerly line of the right-of-way and the southerly line of lot 1 does not equal or exceed 10,000 square feet, the property line dividing lots 1 and 2 shall be shifted northward to add the appropriate property to proposed lot 2. The aforementioned sketch plan shall be submitted prior to the filing of the subdivision with Hennepin County. be The Owner/applicant shall furnish documents, such as title opinion or certificate of title, sufficient to prepare a recordable easement for the existing City watermain. Upon execution of an easement document, the owner/applicant shall have an easement placed of record with Hennepin County. The City shall be furnished a copy of the recorded document. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions (see attached Exhibit "A"): Parcel 1: That part of Lot 9, and the West half of Lot 10, "Halsted Heights", lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 260 feet south from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet thereof. Parcel 2: That part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot 10, "Halsted Heights", lying Southerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 260 feet south from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, together with an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet of that part cf said Lot 9 lying Northerly of said above described line. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 3 CASE NO. 92-009 & 92-010 It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The applicant shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the city. The applicant shall also have the responsibility of paying all costs for such recording. This lot subdivision and variance is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. City Planner, Mark Koeqler, reviewed the applicant,s request to change a property line that was prevtousl · subdivision. The rs sad s ~,.~.. ..... ? ?~abllshed by a minor separating Iota p po ubd.....u..z~ sniff the property line one and two 80 feet to ~he south. Lot one will have an area of 19,500 square feet and lot 2 will have an area of 28,600 square feat. This history of the subdivisions approved for this property was reviewed. The City Engineer reviewed the application and expressed a concern with the existing watermain that crosses the southerly parcel. An easement is not reflected on the survey. _~f an easement document does exist the applicant should furnish cna City with a copy, if the document does not exists, he recommends that one be dedicated as pert of the subdivision approval. The City Planner addressed a potential long term plan of extending Halstead Avenue through the proposed southern parcel It appears that two lots could be created out of what is now l~t 2, both of which would exceed 10,000 square feet in area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a variance from the requirements of Section 330:20 (l) 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances to allow the subject request to beprocessed as a minor subdivision. It is further recommended that a variance be granted for lot 2 which does not have frontage on a public street and that the subdivision of lots 1 and 2 be approved in accordance With the survey dated 2/13/92 subject to the following condition: l. The applicant shall supply a sketch plan prepared by licensed land surveyor identifying the potentlal extension o~ Haletead Avenue in an alignment consistent with the platted location of the street in the Heisted View Subdivision. If the corresponding land area lying between the northerly line of the right-of-way and the southerly line of lot 1 does not equal or exceed 10,000 square feet, the property line dividing lots 1 and 2 shall be shifted northward to add the appropriate property to proposed lot 2. The aforementioned sketch plan shall be subuitted prior tot he filing of the subdivision with Hennepln County. 2. The Owner/applicant shall furnish documents, such as title opinion or certificate of title, sufficient to prepare a recordable easement for the existing City watermaln. 3. Upon execution of an easement document, the owner/applicant shall have an easement placed of record with Mennepin County. The City shall be furnished a copy of the recorded document. Weilandquestioned if the sewer and Water assessments were current. Staff will verify prior to the Council meeting. Nueller expressed a concern relating the southerly lot not having any frontage on an improved public right-of-way. The applicant confirmed that he has not researched his abstract for the water easement yet. Meyer expressed a concern for the applicant relating to the fees involved to file the easement document. Koegler commented that the City Engineer can create an easement agreement by Using the easement description for the sanitary sewer from an existing Title (~lnion or Certificate of Title. The applicant will only have marginal filing fees, the city will prepare the documents if the description is provided to Use. · he City is trying to complete this task es inexpensively as possible for all parties. NOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of staff recommendation for approval including all conditions. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Meyer, Hanus, Jenson, and Michael. Mueller vas opposed. Mueller commented that a new lot ts being created which does not front on an improved public right-of-way and he is not in favor of creating new nonconforming lots. He compared this request to that of creatlnqbottleneck lots and questloned if they are not similar. This request viii be heard by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1992. Hoi$ington Group Inc. LANO USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Kocgler, City Planner DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variances APPLICANT: Richard Olexa CASE NUMBER: 92-009 and 92-010 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1p LOCATION: 6607 Bartlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single-family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential 'BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to change a property line that was previously established in a minor subdivision request that was approved in 1983. Under the current request, the property line separating lots 1 and 2 will be shifted approximately 80 feet to the south to accommodate construction of a new detached garage on lot 1. Lot 1 will have an area of 19,500 square feet and lot 2 will have an area of 28,600 square feet. When the subdivision of this property was approved in 1981 and again in 1983, the request was processed-as a minor subdivision consistent with the code that was applicable at the time. Under the current subdivision ordinance that was adopted in 1986, the division does not qualify as a minor subdivision because the proposed lot does not front on a public street (Section 330:20 (A) 2). Therefore, in order to process the current request as a minor division, a variance from the above referenced section of the subdivision ordinance will have to be granted. A variance will also 7401 Metro Blvd.- ~uite ~40- IV~i~a~, ~ 5~,~9 · (61.2) ~3~-~) ,, ~2Planning Report Page 2 be required since lot 2 will not front on a public street. Access to lot 2 will be via an easement over lot 1. COMMENT: On two previous occasions, the City of Mound found that a division creating either two or three lots was appropriate for the subject site. The current request which is very similar to the 1983 approval creates two lots, one of which does not have frontage on a public street. Since the request was approved previously and since on previous occasions, the subdivision was processed as a minor division, approval of the variances and subdivision is in order. The current request raises the issue of street access to the southern end of the parcel. Long term, the City may desire to extend Halstead Avenue through the properties in this area to provide street access. If Halstead Avenue was extended with a 50 foot width through the subject property, it appears that two lots could be created out of what is now lot 2, both of which would exceed 10,000 square feet in area. This conclusion has been reached utilizing half-section information combined with the applicants current survey. Due to scale, the accuracy of this information is questionable. It is in the City's best long term interest to see that conforming lots could be created in this area if the street extension ever occurs. Therefore, the applicant's surveyor could accurately project the right-of-way and calculate the corresponding lot area for the land lying north of the street extension. If the resulting lot is less than 10,000 square feet, the line separating proposed lots 1 and 2 could be shifted to the north thereby creating a future conforming parcel if an extension of Halstead Avenue occurs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a variance from the requirements of Section 330:20 (A) 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances to allow the subject request to be processed as a minor subdivision. It is further recommended that a variance be granted for lot 2 which does not have frontage on a public street and that the subdivision of lots 1 and 2 be approved in accordance with the survey dated 2/13/92 subject to the following condition: · The applicant shall supply a sketch plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor identifying the potential extension of Halstead Avenue in an alignment consistent with the platted location of the street in the Halsted View subdivision. If the corresponding land area lying between the northerly line of the right-of-way and the southerly line of lot 1 does not to q Olexa Planning Report 417192 Page :~ equal or exceed 10,000 square feet, the property line dividing lots 1 and 2 shall be shifted northward to add the appropriate property to proposed lot 2. The aforementioned sketch plan shall be submitted prior to the filing of the subdivision with Hennepin County. NOTE: The City Engineer has prepared a letter discussing additional issues relative to this case. Recommendations contained within the City Engineer's letter should be incorporated into the Planning Commission's recommendations. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED APR 8 1992 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 April 7, 1992 Telephone 6121476--6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Ma~wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Minor Subdivision Richard 01exa Property Lots 9 and 10, Halstead Heights Case #92-009 - MFRA #8902 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the above proposed subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations. This area has been the subject of various proposals over the years, including the possible extension of Halstead Avenue. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, will address the impact of a street extension in his report. I have two concerns regarding the survey furnished, dated February 13, 1992. It shows the existing property descriptions as three separate parcels; however, Hennepin County's tax records show this property as two parcels which coincide with the subdivision approved in 1981 under Resolution No. 81-270. It does not appear that the subdivision created in 1983 by Resolution No. 83-61 was ever recorded. The second problem is with the existing watermain that crosses the southerly parcel. The original construction plan shows this watermain located within a 9-foot wide easement adjacent to the north side of the sanitary sewer easement. The survey furnished with this request does not show an easement for the watermain. If indeed the easement does exist, the City should be furnished a copy of the document and if there is not an easement of record, we would recommend that one be dedicated as part of this approval. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmj An Equal Opportunity Employer 119. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis .// (United States of America corporation) to THE VILLAGE OF MOUND, (a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota) 3794675 Easement ~"~ ~6~~%~'~ Dated September 5, 1969 Filed September 15, 1969 Book 69 of HCR page 3794675 Consideration $1.00 etc. · First party does hereby grant and convey unto the said party "of the second part, its successors and assigns, a .permanent easement for public utility purposes over and acposs "the~ract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota described as follows, to-wit: An egsement 9 fe,~pt in width over that part of the East 1/2 of Lot 10, and all o~-Lo_~i-l/" Hals'ted Heights lying SOuth of the following described' line:~.The Northerly line of said easement beJ. ng described as begihnJng at the intersection of tile Westerly line of Lot 1 Halstead Heights and the Northerly line of ]!a]sted Avenue as laJ. d out in the plat of Ha].sted Park, thence extending the North line of Halsted Avenu~ Northeasterly to the East ~l. ine of Lot 11, ~$alstead Heights, said line to run parallel with '!~].,~ South line of Ha]sted Avenue extended~_~ Application for SUBD ON OF LAND Cfty of Mound 5341 I~,~ood Road, Mound, ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600t Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:___~~_~L~__ City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed:~ Copy to City planner: ~ Copy to Public Works: ~ Delinquent Taxes? Copy to City Engineer: Other: VARIANCE REQUIRED? Case .o. Application Fee: $50.00 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Please type or print the following information.* Address of Subject Property ~0 ~- ~ ~W~~ Owner's Name ~\t~'CI~'C'{ O~L ~L Applicant' s N~e (if other than ~er) Address ~ame of Surveyor: Name of Engineer: Day Phone (-~'"~)--L~O~ D Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION Addition Block Has an application ever been made for~oning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~es, ( ) no. I~ yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be si~n~4Nby all owners of the subject property, or an explanation Signature of Owner -- g/ ]nature of Owner Date VARIANCE APPLICATION ' OZTY OF HOUND S34~ Ma]wood Road, Mound, MN SS364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 -009 Zoning Sheet Completed: ~-2~-~Z ~Y copy to city Planner: copy to Public Works: ..~. -0 Copy to City Engineer: eee®e®eeeeeeeee®e®eeeeeeee®e®eee eeeeeeeeeeeee®eeoeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property &~ 8~/~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone Addition~~~~~__ Block 0011 Zoning District Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) provide copies of resolutions. conditional use If and TYPE OF STRUCTURE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: ( ) ~211ing ( ) Garage Other Detailed descripton of propos.ed, constru_~ction~Dt~z~~ ~ ~-~ , of stories, type of use, etc.).~~ or altera.tion (size, n~mber Variance Application Case Page 2 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setb~ regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 'Hi No (.). If no, ~pecify each non-conforming use (describe ~n Tot variance reas request, 1.e. setback, lo, area, etc. Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: required requested VARIANCE setback setback ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present ~se of the property conform to a~ regulations for the zoning district In which it is located? Yes ~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small (.) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow (~ shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 5. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property inter~sts i~n/~the land after the zoning mrdinanc, e was adoD.t~d (1982)? Yes ~, No)/;-- If yes, explain /~-~~ ~~-~ ~! variance App~tion case Was the hardship created ,~.her man-made change, such as th~ relocation of a road? Yes ~% a.y , No~ If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hardship for which yo~ request a variance pgc~liar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Applicant' s Signature Io $ I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. qz. oOCl PROPOSED LOT DiViSION FOR .RICHARD A. OLEXA IN LOTS 9 & 10. HALSTED HEIGHTS HENNEPIH COUNTY. MINNESOTA .... J_ I_ I _1 _1 I _ j ...... I_. ~ I I.i Certificate of Survey for Richard A. Olexa in Lots 9 and 10, Balsted Heights Hennepin County, Minnesota I.hereby certify that this is a true and correct repre- sentation of a survey of the boundaries of: ~/ .That part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot 10, "Halsted Heights", lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 210 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet thereof; B_/ That..part of Lot 9 and the West ..half of Lot 10, .".Ha!steal,Heights", lying Southerly of a line drawn Northea. sterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 210 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, together with' an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet of that part of said. Lot 9 lying Northerly of said above- described parallel line, and the locatio~ of all existing buildings thereon. It does not pur.port to show other improvements or encroachments. · ~ORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC. Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Mark S. Gronberg Reg. No. 12755 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: 1" = 80' Date of field: survey: 7-23-81 Dat~.of descriptions and plat: o : Iron marker 4-12-83 . !'~ :I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of - ' -a survey of the boundaries of: J~/ That part of Lot' 9 an~ the West half of Lot 10, Halsted Heights, ly~_n~ Northerly of a line dra~n Mortheasterly parallel with the Northerly line-of said iota fr~a a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 185 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easemnt for drive~ay purposes over. the West 10 feet thereof; B_/ That part of Lot 9 and th~ West halff of Eot 10, Halsted Heights, lying Southerly of a line drawn ~ortheasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said Iota f~m a ps,ut on the ~est line of said Eot 9 distant 185 feet :South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, and lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said iota from a point on the West line of said Lot. 9 .distant 205 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the West 20 feet thereof; Also the East 15 feet of that part of said West half of ~ot 10 lying Southerly of a line drawn ~ortheasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lot fram a point on the_ West line of said lot distant 205 feet South fr~m the Northwesterly corner of said lot; Also that part of said West half of LOt 10 lying West of said above-describe~ ~a~t 15 feet, and South of a line drawn West perpendicular to the ~ast line of said West half of Lot 10 from a point on said East line of the West half distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner of said West half of Lot 10; C_/ ~hat part of LOt 9 and the West half of LOt 10, Halsted Heights, lying Southerly of a line drawn ~ortheasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said ~lots fr~m a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 205 feet South from the 'Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, said .parallel line being hereinafter referred to as ~Line A" together with an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet of that part of ~aid Lot 9 lying Northerly of & line herein- after referred to as "Line B', dra~n Northeasterly parallel with the 'Northerly line of said Lot 9 from a point on the West line of said lot distant 185 feet South fr~m the Northwesterly corner of said lot, and an easement for drive~ay purposes over the West 20 feet of that part of Lot 9 ~ Northerly of said "~ine A" and Southerly of said "~ine B', E~EPT the East 15 feet of that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying Southerly of said "Line An; ALSO EXCEPT that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying West of said above-described 15 feet, and South of a line drawn West perpendicular to the East line of said West half of Lot 10 from a point on said East line of the West half distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner of said West half of Lot 10, And the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1" -- 80' Date : 7-23-81 o ~ Iron marker Gordon R. Coffin Reg. ~o. 606~ ~.and Surveyor and Planner Long ~ake, ~innesota U7 RESOLUTION t83-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED - THAT PART OF LOT 9 AND THE NEST 1/2 OF LOT 10 LYING SOUTHERLY OF NORTHERLY 185 FEET, HALSTEO HEIGHTS *PID #22-117-2~ q3 0011/0012 WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivlsl'on requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, It Is determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict applicatlon of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to .the public welfare or Injurious to other owners: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOUND, HINNESOTA: 1) That the request of' Rlchard A. 01exa for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as Lot 9 and West I/2 of Lot 10, Halsted Hlghts, Plat 61605, Parcels 1825 and 185, PlO #22-117-24 43 0011/0012 Is approved to.be dlvlded as follows: PARCEL **A** - That part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot 10, *~Halsted Heights*~, lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Norther line of said lots from-a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 210 feet South from the North- westerly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for drive- way purposes over the West 10 feet thereof; PARCEL "B" - That part of Lot ~ and the West half of Lot 10, ~'Halsted Heights*~, lying Southerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 210 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, together with an easement for driveway purposes over the West 10 feet of that part.of sald Lot 9 lylng Northerly of said above described parallel line. 2) That any deficiencies on said property resulting from division are to be paid in full or waivers signed. 3) It is determined that the foregolne division will constitute a desireabl'e and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. ~,..April 19, 1983 The City Clerk is authorized' to'deliver a certlf'led copy of *thls resolutlon to the applicant for filing In the office of the Register of Oeeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show comPliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolut|on was duly seconded by Councilmember Paulsen and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston; the following voted against the same: none; with Councilm~e~w~s~'~b~'a~ ~xCuSed;~here'. upon said resolution was 'declared passed and adopted,_signed bY the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: C i t~y-~-le rk .... I100 295 August 1 i, rick moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 81-270 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED - THAT PART OF LOT 9 & W.½ OF LOT 10 LYING SOUTHERLY AND NORTHERLY 185 FEET, HALSTEAD HEIGHTS WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, it is determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other owners, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUNO, MINNESOTA: 1) That the request of Richard A. Olexa for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five areas, described as Lot 9 and West 1/2 of Lot 10, Halstead Heights, Plat 61605, Parcels 1825 and 1850, PID #22-117-24 43 0011/0012 is approved to be divided as follows: NEW PARCEL ! (Shown on survey as A & B): That part of Lot 9 and the west half of Lot 10, Halstead Heights, lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 185 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the West l0 feet thereof; that part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot !0, Halstead Heights, lying Southerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 185 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, and lying Northerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 205 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9, subject to an easement for driveway purposes over West 20 feet thereof; also the East 15 feet of that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying Southerly of a line drawn North- easterly parallel with the Northerly line of said lot from a point on the West line of said lot distant 205 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said lot; Also 296 August that part of sald ~est half of Lot I0 lying West of said above-described East 15 feet, and South of a line drawn West perpendicular to the East line of said West hal{ o{ Lot 10 from a point on said East line of the West ha]f distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner of said West half of Lot 10. NEW PARCEL 2 (Shown on survey as C): That part of Lot 9 and the West half of Lot 10, Halstead Heights, lying Southerly of a line drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line and said lots from a point on the West line of said Lot 9 distant 205 feet South from the North- westerly corner of said Lot 9, said parallel line being hereinafter referred to as "Line A", together with an easement for driveway purposes over the West lO feet of that part of said Lot 9 lying Northerly of a line herein- after referred to as "Line B", drawn Northeasterly parallel with the Northerly line of said Lot 9 from a point on the West line of said lot distant 185 feet South from the Northwesterly corner of said lot, and an easement for driveway purposes over the West 20 feet of that part of Lot 9 lying Northerly of said "Line A" and Southerly of said "Line B", EXCEPT the East 15 feet of that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying Southerly of said "Line A"; ALSO EXCEPT that part of said West half of Lot 10 lying West of said above described 15 feet, and South of a line drawn West perpendicular to the East line of said West helf of Lot IO from a point on said East line of the West half distant 588.65 feet South from the Northeast corner of said West half of Lot 10. It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. 3) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Manager. Mayor Attest: City Manager ItoZ. THE CITIZENS FOR COMMONS' SENSE CITIZENS FOR COMMONS' SENSE 'IS A GROUP OF CONCERNED HOUND CITIZENS WHO WISH TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION HAKING PROCESSES WHICH AFFECT THEIR LIVES AND PROPERTIES, These decision making processes include but are not limited to: COMMONS' POLICIES Translate commons' policies into simple english. Examine the appropriateness of specific commons' policies, administration and categories, Hake 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 For further information, please contact: THE CITIZENS FOR COMMONS' SENSE 4729 Island View Drive Hound, MN 55304 472-1076 PROTOCOL FOR CITY COUNCIL WELCOME, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING ~ WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING INDIVIDUAL CASES ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED. BUT, IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS ANYTHING NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, YOU MAY SPEAK DURING THE "COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS" PERIOD ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS OR MAKE COMMENTS UPON AN UPCOMING CASE ON THE AGENDA LATER IN THE MEETING, THEN YOU MAY ALSO "REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING A LATER AGENDA ITEM", HOWEVER, YOU MUST ASK FOR THIS PERMISSION DURING THE "COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS" AGENDA ITEM, OR YOU MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK LATER. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC L~'DS - LAND ~TEI~,TION PEI~IT _ FOR TRINNING OF TREES ~ VEGETATION AT #IOTA CONNONS ~BUTTING 1749 BLUEBIRD L~E, BLOCK 9, LOTS 13 & 14, DRE~WOOD, DOCK SITE #13480, WHEREAS, Larry Hauskins has applied for an after-the-fact Public Lands - Land Alteration Permit to allow for trimming of small trees, shrubs and other vegetation at Wiota Commons abutting 1749 Bluebird Lane, Block 9 Lots 13 & 14 Dreamwood, Dock Site #13480; and ' , WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. 4. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a special land alteration permit; and WHEREAS, the subject trimming was noticed by staff during a routine site inspection; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval, with conditions 6 voting in favor and 1 opposed. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve an after-the-fact Public Lands - Land Alteration Permit for trimming of small trees and vegetation contingent upon the applicant removing the trimmings from Wiota Commons at their expense, and in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Land Permit. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY P~RK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 9, L992 pUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION: L~RRY HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUEBIRD L~NE, NIOTA COMMONS, DOCK SITE 13480 - TRIMMING OF VEGETATION. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicants request for an after-the-fact permit to trim small trees, shrubs, sumac, vines and overgrowth on the public lands abutting his property. Staff recommended approval of the permit contingent upon the applicant removing the trimmings from Wiota Commons at their expense and in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Lands Permit. The applicant explained what vegetation was cut and commented that there was also garbage in the area which they picked-up. He questioned if he could also remove stumps which remained from larger trees which had been cut by someone else. His reason for trimming the area was to improve his view of the lake and to clean- up the area. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of an after-the-fact Public Lands Permit to Larry Hauskins for trimming of vegetation contingent upon the &pplic&nt removing the trimmings from Vista Commons at their expense, and in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Lends Permit. Motion carried S to 1. Those in favor were: Skoglund, Asleson, Byrnes, ~ndersen, Eischeid, Mueller, Schmldt, and Ahrens. Casey was opposed. / lO. CITh ()f ,\ IOUND MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 9, 1992 Park Commission Meeting City Council and Park and Open Space Commission Jim Fackler, Parks Director~.~~ Public Land~ Permit Ap 1ica · ~ar~y Hausk,ns, ~749 .~,,.~=~0~ to Trim Vegetation mock Bite #~3480 ..... ~z-u ~ane, Wiota Conuaons, Staff recommends approval of an "after-the-fact,, permit for the trimming of small trees, shrubs, sumac, vines and overgrowth that had been completed as of 3-20-92. Approval is contingent upon the conditions that the party responsible for the trimming, Larry Hauskins, remove the trimmings at their cost from Wiota Commons, and that in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Lands Permit. JF:pj printed on recycled paper Revised 2/18/92 (Public. Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Da t e Rese iv ed Distribution: Park Meeting D~e_- ' 4-q-~ Building official City Council Date Watershed DNR LMCD TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): , ', CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMrr- new construction or OR i .I improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. -, PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an existing st. ructur~e trees, fill, slope, ,~x_, LAND ALTERATION - change inshoreline, drainage, etc · ......... '' ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPEUTY /Tqq L OWNER'S NAME L~ ~~b~$KiA/$ OWNER'S DaY PHONE # LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: ADDITION NAME OF PUBLIC LAND BLOCK PID # DOCK SITE ~ SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION APPLICANT' S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # PHONE# VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (iNCLUDINGLABOR &MATERIALS): DESCRIBE REQUEST & pURPOSE: ' I ~ .f ...... , I ~ Dated signature of Applicant ........................................... .................... Denied DATE Approved - Denied DATE PARK COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL - _ Approved _ // /9 9 /0 /3 /8~ °.50 // /0 /88 °06' /3 /77~20' /2' I0 £. //08' Mound City Code Sect:ion 320:O0 Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction o.f any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the naturaz contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. Ail special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. on Re uirin~ a Special Construction on PuSl~ic ~ Subd. 2. Tvves of Construction ae uzr~- _~ .... ~--__. ...... tructures, stone work, Permit. All stairways, retainin, g walls, ..... [~11 re-uire a special permit. ~oncr~te forming, or any type o£ constructzuu ~,~ ~ No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City.. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure om public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdXvision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the Czty offzces. All applzcations for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Ail structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. s ecial land alteration permit shall be required Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A p ........ ~ lands which would result from the C~ty before any alterations are maoe on p ...... in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are non-conforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. I I ~ (~o) COMMON (flARRISONS 'AY) ///o Mr. Edward Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 April 9, 1992 Dear Mr. Shukle: Enclosed please find a letter to the City Council which proposes an increase in the pension benefit for the Mound Fire Department monthly pension. Also enclosed is a copy of a recent actuarial study which demonstrates the normal costs to the fund to pay various benefits. Please distribute the enclosed letter and actuarial study to the council members and schedule this item on an upcoming agenda for a council meeting. Since Ken Smith will be out of town for a couple of weeks, the April 28, 1992 date is preferable. Please confirm when this matter will be scheduled on the City Council agenda to Don Bryce or myself. In the meantime, feel free to contact us with any questions concerning this proposal. ~ Carlson, President Mound Fire Department Relief Association (Work-544-0341) (Home-472-5485) RESOLUTION NO. 90-67 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELIEF ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST TO INCREASE PENSION BENEFITS AS REQUESTED WHEREAS, the Fire Department Relief Association has had its Actuarial Study done for 1989; and WHEREAS, they are now requesting an increase in pension benefits from $350.00 per month to $395 00 per month, effective July 1, 1990; and ' WHEREAS, there are adequate funds in this fund to allow these increases; and WHEREAS, they have not had an increase in pension fund since 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the Fire Department Relief Association,s request to an increase in pension benefits as follows: $395.00 per month, effective July 1, 1990. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Mound City Council 5341Maywood Road Mound, Mn 55364 April 9, 1992 Dear Council Members: The Mound Fire Department Relief Association recently contracted with Bordewick & Company to conduct an actuarial study on our pension fund. The study was conducted based upon monies in this fund as of December 31, 1991. A copy of the actuarial study is attached for your review. One of the purposes of the actuarial study was to determine the current normal costs and accrued liabilities based upon actuarial assumptions required by state law. Another objective was to determine the costs of increasing the benefit levels from the current $395.00 per month. The actuarial study contains discussions of the purpose, the current assets, the impact of benefit increases, the benefit plan outline, the actuarial assumptions, and the member statistics. The Relief Association pension fund is currently supported from three sources-city contributions, 2% State Aid, and income from investments of the fund. In 1991, the 2% State Aid was $46,041.00 and has increased only slightly in the last couple of years as property values have remained relatively constant in our coverage area. In 1992, the city is contributing approximately $69,555.00. Therefore, assuming the 2% State Aid remains constant, the total funding for 1992 should total at least $115,596.00. The actuarial study contains a discussion on the impact of benefit increases. To raise the monthly benefit by $25.00, the fund will require additional funding of $13,057.00. At the current benefit of $395.00 per month, contribution requirements are $100,061.00. As previously stated, the fund is receiving expected contributions of $115,596.00 in 1992. Therefore, the fund will receive $15,535.00 over the required contribution which can be used to fund a benefit increase of $30.00 per month. The Relief Association Board of Directors is proposing a benefit increase to $425.00 effective July 1, 1992. This increase will not require additional funding from the city, but does require approval from the city council. The city council approval for this increase is required as long as the city makes contributions to the fire department's pension fund. We will need an approved motion by the Mound City Council and a letter for our files stating the same. April 9, 1992 Hopefully this letter has adequately discussed the actuarial study and the proposed benefit increase. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, ' · , President Mound Fire Department Relief Association MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. ACTUARIAL VALUATION DECEMBER 31, 1991 BORDEWlCK ~ CO. BORDEWICK & CO. ACTUARIES AND CONSULTANTS 724 ! OHMS LANE EDINA, MN 55439 EL I 2-~35-~77Z February 20, 1992 Board of Trustees Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association, Inc P.O. Box 37 ' Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Mr. David J. Carlson, President Gentlemen: Attached is the report which presents the results of the December 31, 1991 Actuarial Valuation of the Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association, Inc. I certify that all calculations with respect to the valuation were performed on the basis of the assumptions and methods outlined in the Exhibits of the report and the results are correct to the best of my knowledge. The Actuarial Valuation was conducted in accordance with my understanding of the applicable provisions of Chapter 69.733 and Chapter 356 of the Minnesota Statutes. Sincerely, James R. Bordewick, F.S.A. JRB:cah Attachment 1115 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. ACTUARIAL VALUATION AS OF DECEMBER 31~ 1991 INTRODUCTION Chapter 356.216 of Minnesota Statutes required that an actuarial valuation of the fund be conducted periodically. An actuarial valuation is a calculation to determine the normal cost and accrued liability of the fund and includes a determination of the payment necessary to amortize the unfunded liability over a stated period and a determination of the payment necessary to keep the unfunded liability from increasing. The actuarial valuation is conducted according to a stated actuarial cost method, Entry Age Normal Cost, and, as prescribed in Chapter 356.215, Subdivision 4(4), an interest assumption of 5% must be utilized. The By-Laws of the Association were amended on May 22, 1990 to provide for a monthly service pension of $395. MEMBERSHIP There were 37 active members and 23 inactive members or beneficiaries included in the actuarial costs. Member statistics are shown in Exhibit B and C. ASSUMPTION CHANGES The actuarial assumptions are shown in Exhibit D. There were no chan§es in the actuarial assumptions from the previous actuarial valuation. ~ORDEWICK ~ Co. ~SSETS Chapter 356.20, Subdivision 4 as applied to firefighter's relief associations enumered in Chapter 69.771 and 69.773 of the Minnesota Statutes requires that assets be reported on a bsis which is approximately a cost basis. However, it is our opinion that the asset basis for the actuarial valuation can be on a different basis and we can have continued the practice of using market value. The market value of the assets on December 31, 1991 was $1,447,479 16 and the cost value on the same date was $1,371,813.26. ' The table below shows the inventory of the principal trust assets as f December 31, 1991 furnished on page 86 of The Marquette Bank Minneapolis, N ~ 1991 trust accounting. . . INVENTORY OF PRINCIPAL TRUST ASSETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1991 Market Value Cost Value Cash $ (3,875.00) $ (3,875.00) Investments Lehman/Provident Temp Fund B Certificates of Deposit US Government GNMA and Treasury Notes Corporate Bonds Mutual Funds Total Assets 139,673.97 lO0,O00.O0 643,691.57 354,635.93 213,352.69 $1,451,354.16 $1,447,479.16 139,673.97 100,000.00 600,682.78 339,939.60 195,391.91 $1,375,688.26 $1,371,813.66 llf"l BORDEWICK & Co. ACTUARIAL BALANCE SHEET The actuarial balance sheet showing accrued assets and liabilities is shown below as of December 31, 1991. Assets Market Value of current assets Unfunded accrued liability Present value of future normal costs $l,447,479 569,307 449,703 $2,466,489 Liabilities Present value of benefits - active members - inactive members $1,146,316 $1 ~320~173 $2,466,489 BORDEWICK ~ COl ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN UNFUNEDED ACCRUED LIABILITY The unfunded accrued liability increased by $37,098 from December 31, 1989 to December 31, 1991. The analysis of this change is shown below: 1. Unfunded Accrued Liability, 12-31-89 $532,209 2. Amount By Which Contributions Were Greater Than Normal Costs And Interest Requirements 69,268 3. Increase In Accrued Liability Due To Benefit Increases o Actuarial Gain For The Period 216,754 110,388 Unfunded Accrued Liability, 12-31-91: (1) - (2) + (3) - (4) 569,307 The actuarial gain of $110,388 was primarily due to investment earnings in excess of the actuarial assumption of 5%. ~ONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT Section 69.773, Subdivision 4 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the contribution requirement is equal to the normal cost and amortization of the unfunded accrued liability by December 21, 2004 in this case. The normal cost is $42,342 and the contribution requirement as of December 3l, lggl is $100,061. The contribution required to keep the unfunded accrued liability from increasing is $72,924 on December 31, lggl. Estimated city contributions for 1992 are $70,000 contributions are $46,000 for a total of $116,000. IMPACT OF BENEFIT INCREASES and estimated state It was requested that we determine the financial impact of benefit increases to active and inactive members. The current benefit level is $395 a month. For every $25 increase in the monthly benefit, the normal cost will increase by $2,680 and the accrued liability by $127,645. The increase in the accrued liability is amortized over 20 years by statute and a new amortization period is determined for the entire unfunded accrued liability. The amortization period may be extended depending on the size of the increase in the accrued liability. Therefore, the required contribution will increase by $13,057 for every $25 increase in the monthly benefit. BORDEWICK & CO. EXHIBITS Five exhibits are attached to this report. They are: Exhibit A ..... Plan Outline Exhibit B ..... Member Statistics Exhibit C ..... Age/Service Distribution of Active Members Exhibit D ..... Actuarial Assumptions Exhibit E ..... Actuarial Funding Method BORDEWICK & CO. EXHIBITS I1~.1 BORDEWICK & CO. EXHIBIT A PLAN OUTLINE e e 0 ELIGIBILITY: Member of The Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association. Inc. after having served a one year probationary period. SERVICE REQUIREMENT: The later of age 50 or after completion of 20 years of service. Must retire at age 60. The monthly benefit payable is $395. DEFERRED PENSION: Retirement prior to age 50 with 20 years of service. The monthly benefit payable at age 50 is $395. DISABILITY PENSION: Disability which prevents the member from performing duties for at least two weeks. The monthly benefit payable is $395 per month prorated per day. DEATH AND SURVIVIOR BENEFITS: These benefits are applicable if the member dies prior to or after retirement. FUNERAL BENEFIT: $1,500 WIDOWS AND CHILDRENS BENEFITS: Widow receives 75% of member's monthly pension for life or until remarriage. Surviving children receive 25% of member's monthly pension until age 18 or marriage. If the event of death of member and wife, children receive $395 per month until age 18 or marriage. The maximum family benefit is $395 per month. BORD£WlC~( & CO. EXHIBIT B MEMBER STATISTICS ACTIVE MEMBERS 1. There were 37 active members included in the actuarial costs. An age/ service distribution is shown in Exhibit C. 2. The average entry age (age at membership) for the 37 active members is 25.6. RETIRED MEMBERS 1. There were 16 retired members included in the actuarial costs. 2. The total annual retirement benefits payable to these members is $75,840. 3. The average, retirement age for these members has been age 52.5 and average current age of these members is age 63.9. SURVIVORS OF MEMBERS 1. There were 3 widows included in the actuarial costs. 2. The total annual widow's benefits payable is $10,665. OTHER One member terminated since January l, 1990 and this member was not vested. Three members are currently vested One previous terminated member retired. · 2. There ~as been disability payments to two participants since January l, 1990. These disabilities were temporary disabilities. There have been no permanent disabilities since January l, 1979. 3. There was one child included in the actuarial costs. 4. The total annual child's benefit payable to age 18 is $4,740. BORDEWICK ~ CO. Age* 15-19 20-24 24 -29 30 -34 35 -39 40-44 45 -49 50-54 O-1 2-4 EXHIBIT C AGE/SERVICE DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE MEMBERS DECEMBER 31~ 1991 COMPLETED YEARS OF SERVICE 5-9 lO-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 2 55-59 60-64 65+ Total 5 7 4 Average Age = 35.9 Average Service = 10.6 years *Nearest Birthday 3 1 2 1 2 8 7 2 12 1 6 lO 6 lO 2 2 37 BORDEWlCK I~. CO. MORTALITY: MEMBER TURNOVER: DISABILITY: RETIREMENT: INTEREST: MARITAL STATUS: ASSET BASIS: EXHIBIT D ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS 1971 Group Annuity Mortality Table. None assumed. Age retirement costs loaded 1%. The later of age 53 or after 20 years of service. 5%, compounded annually. Actual status utilized. Market value. BORDEWICK & CO. EXHIBIT E ACTUARIAL FUNDING HETHOD ENTRY AGE NORI~L This actuarial funding method is one of the family of projected benefit cost methods. An estimate of the projected benefits expected to be payable under the plan is required to determine the cost~ afd ltabilities with this funding method. The NORMAL COST for each active member is the annual amount required from the member's entry date to retirement date so that the ~ccumulated contributions at termination or retirement will equal the liability at that time. This cost is expressed as a level annual amount. The PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE BENEFITS is equal tO' the value of the future benefits expected to be payable discounted back to the member's current age. Discounts include such items as mortality, turnover, interest, and any other decremental assumption~. The value includes the value, of benefits for both active and inactive members. The PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE NORMAL COSTS is equal to the value of the future NORMAL COSTS for the active members discounted for the decrements described above and payable from the member's current age to retirement age. The ACCRUED LIABILITY is 'equal to the difference between the PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE BENEFITS and the PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE NORMAL COSTS. The UNFUNDED LIABILITY is equal to the difference between the ACCRUED LIABILITY and the current valuation assets. ACTUARIAL GAINS AND LOSSES are reflected in adjustments to the UNFUNDEO LIABILITY fromyear to year. Il BOeDEwtc~( & CO. CITY of MOUND Staff Report MOUND M~N',;ESOT& g5364 ~6b' ~672 472 ~'55 FAX ~6~2 472 {1620 DATE: April 28, 1992 City Council Meeting TO: City Council, Applicant, and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official LOCATION: Devon Commons, Abutting 4729 Island View Drive LEGAL: Lot 6, Block 7, Devon SUBJECT: Dilapidated Boat House Back round Chronolo ical Histor Attached During the process of conducting a detailed scheduled inventory of the encroachments on Devon Commons by City Parks Director Jim Fackler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, the dilapidated condition of the subject boat house was discovered. It was first noted that the~~had a consid~_erable sag in the center. Further inspection on the inside and outside of the structure revealed that on one side was not attached to the supporting masonry -.. _ ~a~asr~t~_v ~ee i9 mid air. In addition, the ~ d, ana aeveloped up t© 1 inch cracks from the bottom to the top in approximately the center of each wall apparently due to the freeze and thaw cycle. In evaluating any situation similar to this where you are experiencing structural failure, it is difficult to estimate when the building will finally collapse. I must, however, recognize a hazard and act accordingly to initiate an order to remove or repair following applicable City Code Section 1005:00 and the State Building Code. All action in such cases are taken b the Council. Staff at this point has only recognized this situation and requested review and advisement from the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Dilapidated Boat House 4729 Island View Drive April 28, 1992 The following issues have an impact of varying degree on this case. 1. A 3 year Maintenance Permit was issued on December 10, 1991 by the City Council for a playhouse, boat house, stairway, and retaining wall. This permit essentially allows the abutting owner to maintain a structure on the commons, in other words, it may remain unaltered or unimpaired (please note city Attorney Curt Pearson's letter dated February 10, 1976, page 5, 1st paragraph). At this time, and in the process of issuing this permit, neither the staff nor the City Council addressed the condition of the boat house. 2. City Code Section 320 relating to Construction of Public Land Permits states "No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members." 3. city Code Section 300:15 relating to Floodplain Regulations requires a minimum floor elevation of 933.5. City Code Section 23.407 (5) c. requires a 4 foot setback from the 929.5 contour elevation. If substantial improvement is proposed to the existing boat house, a variance to these sections may have to be recognized, depending on the classification of the use (note low risk uses 300:15, Subd. 7). 4. Mound is currently preparing a new floodplain ordinance and a new shoreland ordinance. This proposal falls within what will become the regulatory domain of both of these ordinances. Since the new ordinances have not been completed or adopted to date, this proposal falls under the current floodplain regulations and under the zoning code since Mound does not presently have a shoreland ordinance. Current State Shoreland rules are included as Attachment #1. 5. Any pertinent permits from other governmental agencies must be acquired (i.e. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). Comments With review of the history of the commons, the encroachments, the city Code, Comprehensive Plan, the Use Plan and Flow Chart which were specifically developed for the commons, with the goal of amortizing and eventual removal of structures on commons, there is o question the boat house should be removed at some point. 2 IIZ$ Staff Report Dilapidated Boat House 4729 Island View Drive April 28, 1992 Staff Recommendation OPTION #1: The City Council direct staff and the City Attorney to proceed with removal of the boat house due to its unsafe condition on public land. OPTION #Z: To allow the applicant continued use of the boat house 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 this report. JS:pj 3 Attachment I Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Section 5.21 ot~ this ordinance if this water- oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: (1) the structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square i'eet. Deta. ched decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point; (2) the setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary water level must be at least ten feet; (3) the structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; (4) the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must be enclosed or used as a storage area; (5) the structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities; and (6) as an alternative for general development and recreational develot~ment waterbodies, water-oriented accessory struct~'res used solely for watercraft storage, and includin,.z, storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting " e uipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet Pqrovided the maximum width of the structure is 20 t'eet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. April 17, 1992 Chronological Recap of Construction on Public Lands Permit for Carol Munson 4729 Island View Drive ~arch 17, 1978 Memorandum to Robert Miner, Public Works Director, from Dan Rother, Dock Inspector regarding Maintenance Permits for Use of Commons. Property at 4729 Island View Drive was listed in the memorandum, the use being a boat house and a playhouse. July 17, 1978 Review of Commons Maintenance Permit Applications at Mound Advisory Park Commission, including application for 4729 Island View Drive for playhouse, boat house, stairway, and retaining wall. AUGust 8, 1978 Resolution 78-372 approving the issuance a Maintenance Permits for 4729 Island View Drive, as follows: ae be Playhouse, boat house and stairway: Renewable up to 3 years contingent upon the City's use plan. New owners may make application for maintenance permits. Retaining wall: Grant permit up to 5 years and renewable. Auqust 7, 1991 A telephone call was received by Jim Fackler, Parks Director, from a neighbor questioning why others could build on the commons when they had a request denied for a deck on Devon Commons the preceding year. A site inspection was conducted on the commons area by Jim Fackler, Parks Director, and Jon Sutherland, Building Official at the adjacent abutting property at 4729 Island View Drive. Inspection notice to 4729 Island View Drive for Construction without a permit: "Deck and stairway needs a public lands permit and a building permit." Auqust 23, 1991 Letter from Jon Sutherland, Building Official, to Ms. Munson regarding site inspection on 8-7-91 relating to city code and building code violations at 4729 Island View Drive. The letter requested that an application be submitted. The letter referenced the August 7th inspection and specifically addressed riprapping, a stairway, and a deck constructed without a permit. April 17, 1992 Carol Munson, 4729 Island View Drive Chronological Recap of Construction on Public Lands October 21, 199! Letter to Ms. Munson from Jim Fackler, Parks Director notifying her that an application has not been received as requested by the Building officials letter of August 23, 1991, and the issue is scheduled to be reviewed on November 14, 1991 by the Park and Open Space Commission. November 5, 199! Application was received from Ms. Munson, 4729 Island View Drive for a Construction on Public Lands Permit for riprap and a floating deck. The applicant submitted eight pages of photographs with comments regarding items in need of repair. The applicant did not mention that the boat house was in need of repair. Application material references existing unsafe conditions on site such as old deck unsafe, unsteady deteriorating stairs, broken stairs and platform. A Building Permit application was also received for riprap, a floating deck and two stairways. The application was not complete, no plans were submitted. November 6, 199! Letter was sent to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Ron Quanbeck, notifying him of an ,,after-the-fact" permit application submitted to the City of Mound from Ms. Munson at 4729 Island View Drive involving riprapping. November 12, 1991 The city of Mound received a copy of a certified letter mailed to Ms. Munson by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District referencing possible violation of MCWD Rules relating to a riprap wall. This would need to be reviewed by the Watershed for an after-the-fact permit. November 14, 1992 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting: Recommendation from Parks Director, Jim Fackler, regarding Construction on Public Lands Permit Application for Ms. Munson, as follows: 1. Staff recommends renewing the Maintenance Permit for the boat house, playhouse, stairway, and retaining wall for three years. This permit allows these structures to remain for 2 April 17, 1992 Carol Munson, 4729 Island View Drive Chronological Recap of Construction on Public Lands three years from the date of City Council approval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be reviewed again. If the owner wishes to improve these structures, a separate Maintenance Permit is required. The new deck must be removed from City property within 30 days of City Council approval. An after the fact permit for the riprapping must be applied for with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. The motion made by the Park Commission was to approve staff recommendation. Motion failed, 3 in favor and 4 opposed. The request was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 10, 1992. December 10, 1991 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, presented his staff report to the City Council referencing Construction on Public Lands Permit requested by Ms. Munson, 4729 Island View Drive. The Building Official,s recommendation was as follows: 1. The City Council recognizes this area of commons was donated and dedicated to the public for the public use forever by the Tuxedo Park Company in the year 1911. 2. Complete removal of the deck by the applicant at his or her own expense within ninety (90) days of City Council approval. 3. The existing boat house and playhouse have now been brought to the attention of city staff and are current violations of City Code Section 320:00 and should now be brought into conformance with the City Code and removed within a reasonable time as determined by the City Council. The City Council passed the following motion: "MOTION made by Jessen seconded by Jensen to approve a 3 year Maintenance Permit for the playhouse, boat house, stairway and retaining wall, but requiring that the deck be removed within 6 months of that date of this meeting (June 10, 1992). The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens and Smith voting nay. Motion carried." NOTE: what was applied for was a Construction on Public Lands Permit with specific requests. What was given was a Maintenance Permit that did not designate or allow any repairs to the boat house or playhouse, but allowed after-the-fact repairs/construction 3 April 17, 1992 Carol Munson, 4729 Island View Drive Chronological Recap of Construction on Public Lands to the stairway and retaining wall. December 17, 199! A letter was sent to Ms. Munson from the City Manager clarifying the Council's action of December 10, 1991. February 18, 199~ Staff was directed by the Council at the 2-18-92 C.O.W. meeting to inventory the public shoreline for encroachments. A Public Lands Status Sheet would be completed indicating authorized and unauthorized encroachments and that staff would bring this information back to the C.O.W. meeting in June 1992 for review by the city Council. March 20, 1992 Photographs were taken of the Devon Commons area from a distance on the frozen lake. March 30, 199~. A letter was received from Ms. Munson, dated March requesting various information from the City. 28, 1992, April 1, 1992 Peggy James,. Planning & Inspections Secretary, met with Ms. Munson and aided her in obtaining desired information as requested in her letter dated March 28, 1992. April 3, 1992 A letter was received from Ms. Munson's attorney, Richard N. Indritz of Reed & Pond, Ltd., dated April 1, 1992, requesting the City Council to reconsider its decision of December 10, 1992. April 7, 1992 Parks Director Jim Fackler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey began the inventory of the public shoreland with an agenda schedule of looking at the Island Park area first, then moving to Three Points. April 17, 1992 Carol Munson, 4729 ~sland View Drive Chronological Recapi~of Construction on Public Lands ADril 9, 1992 Letter to Ms. !~unson from City Manager Ed Shukle regarding information rec~kved from Secretary Peggy James as requested from Ms. Munson in he~ memorandum dated March 28, 1992. April 13, 1992 In the process of the inventory of Devon Commons by Parks Director Jim Fackler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, it was noted the boat house on Devon Commons adjacent to 4729 Island View Drive had a sagging roof, that the wood knee wall S~pporting the roof on the west side from the main str~cture partially hanging free in mid was dislodged air, and this wall and the roof was not anchored to the masonry walls. The masonry walls had developed severe cracking and structure failure apparently due to frost damage. A portion of the fascia was noted to be rotted. April 14, 1992 This informatio~~ was brought back and discussed with the City Manager and late~ with the City Attorney, and was determined that because it posed~a hazard that it had to be addressed now, rather than to wait tili! the entire inventory was done (proposed date of inventory compilation is June 1992). W' i~i that the boat house at 4729 Island View Drive lth determinin~ posed a hazard~ pictures were taken of the structure. Dock Inspector Tom M~affrey made a call to Ms. Munson in the morning and a message wa~ left on her recorder that we were going to return to her dock site~i At 2:30 p.m., Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Parks Direc~br Jim Fackler returned to take pictures at 4729 Island View Drige and knocked on the door, with no answer they proceeded directly to the commons area. When passing by the lower level of the house we noted an individual and informed her why we were there, we then proceeded to Devon Commons to take pictures and left within a fifteen minute time span. APril 14, 1992 Ms. Munson spok~at the City Council meeting during "Comments and Suggestions ro~ Citizens Present,,, relating to the hazardous condition of he~iiboat house, a copy of these minutes are attached ATTACfIMENT TO: Chronological Recap of Construction on Public Lands Permit for Carol Munson EXCERPT OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1992 1.3 COI41,1ENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROH CITIZENS PRESEI~ Mayor Johnson asked if there was anyone present who had comments or suggestions for the Council. Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, approached the Council. She stated that her attorney had told her today that the boathouse she has on the commons must be removed because it is a hazardous building. City attorney Curt Pearson stated that Building official Jon Sutherland had noticed that her boathouse, built on public land, was a safety hazard and had asked Curt how this should be handled. The discovery of this hazardous building came about during the taking of inventory of encroaching structures on the commons. No orders had been issued by the City to remove this hazardous building to date. The staff involved was not in attendance. Council took no action. Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section 320 - Private Structures and Privat, Construction Activities on Public Lands Section 320:00. S~pecial Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. Ail special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Requiring a Special Construction on Public Lam] Permit. Ail stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City.. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure om public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. All applzcations for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Ail structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are non-conforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Mound City Code Section 320:00, Subd. 5 Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direc- tion of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. [54- 1991, 12-23-91) Subd. 5. Street Excavation Permit Recluired. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605, 12-23-91 R®vLeed 2/28/92 PUBLIC LANDS STATUS SIiEET ADDRESS OF ABUTTING OWNER' S NAME Munson, Carole 4729 Island View D~' Mo~md MN 55364 DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING LEGAL LOT (S)_____~ ADDITION_ NAME OF PUBLIC LAND ~.o~o~.~ o~ ~.~.?~ ~o PROPERTY: 42314 BLOCK ~-~ SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIZED ENCROACHMENTS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE EXPIRATION DATE City Council Meeting of April 28, 1992 AGENDA ITEM 14. REQUEST FROM RICHARD INDRITZ, ATTORNEY, ON BEHALF OF CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS. TABLE OF CONTENTS - PACKET INFORMATION me HISTORY FOR CAROLE MUNSON - 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE: Letter to City Manager from Richard N. Indritz, Attorney with Reed & Pond, LTD. dated April 1, 1992 regarding "Reconsideration of Application for Permit for Construction Public Lands, 4729 Island View Drive, Mound, Letter to Ms. Munson from City Manager dated April 9, 1992 regarding "March 28, 1992 Memorandum to the City of Mound." Memorandum to The City of Mound from Carole Munson dated March 28, 1992 requesting information. Minutes - Committee of the Whole Meeting February 18, 1992. Letter to Ms. Munson from City Manager dated December 17, 1991 regarding "Council Action on your Request for a Construction on Public Lands Permit." Minutes - Mound City Council Meeting December 10, 1991 - Carole Munson. Staff Report from Building Official dated December 10, 1991 City Council Meeting for Construction on Public Lands Permit, 4729 Island View Drive, Carole Munson. Minutes - Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Meeting November 14, 1991 - Carole Munson. Letter to Ms. Munson from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated November 12, 1992. 10. Memorandum to Park Commission from Park Director dated November 14, 1991 Park Commission Meeting, regarding Construction on Public Lands Permit Application for Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive. PACKET PAGE # 1142 1143- 1144 1145- 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150- 1151 1152- 1153 1154 1155 City Council Meeting of Aprll 28, 1992 Agenda Item 14 II. 11. Letter to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District from Parks Director dated November 6, 1991 regarding Ms. Munson's Property. 12. Construction on Public Land Permit Application from Carole Munson received November 5, 1991. 13. Building Permit Application for 4729 Island View Drive. 14. Certificate of Survey for 4729 Island View Drive. 15. Copies of photographs and narrative received from Carole Munson with Construction on Public Land Permit Application. 16. Maps showing 4729 Island View Drive. 17. Letter to Carole Munson from Parks Director dated October 21, 1991 regarding notice of violations to City Code. 18. Letter to Ms. Munson from Building Official dated August 23, 1991 regarding "Site Inspection on 8-7-91 Relating to City Code and Building Code Violations at 4729 Island View Drive." 19. Inspection Notice dated 8-7-91 of 4729 Island View Drive. 20. Resolution #78-372. 21. Memorandum to Public Works Director from Dock Inspector dated March 17, 1978 regarding "Maintenance Permits for Use of Commons." HISTORY FOR DEAN HANUS - 4737 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE: 22. Letter to Dean Hanus from City Manager dated December 17, 1991 regarding "Council Action on Your Request for a Construction on Public Lands Permit." 23. Minutes - City Council Meeting December 10, 1991 - Dean Hanus, 4737 Island View Drive. 24. Staff Report dated December 10, 1991 City Council Meeting from Building Official regarding Dean Hanus, 4737 Island View Drive, Construction on Public Lands Permit. 25. Inspection Notice dated 8-7-91 for 4737 Island View Drive. 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160- 1167 1168- 1169 1170 1171- 1172 1173 1174- 1177 1178 1179- 1180 1181 1182- 1184 1185 City Council Meeting of April 28, 1952 Agenda Item 14 26. Minutes - Park and Open Space Commission Meeting of November 14, 1991 - Dean Hanus. 27. Survey for Dean Hanus, 4737 Island View Drive. 1186- 1187 1188 28. Memorandum dated November 14, 1991 Park Commission Meeting from Park Director regarding Dean Hanus Construction on Public Lands Permit Application. 29. Resolution #78-372. 30. Public Land Maintenance Permit Application from Dean Hanus dated October 22, 1991. 31. Letter to Dean Hanus from Park Director dated October 21, 1991 regarding Construction on Public Lands. 32. Maps of 4737 Island View Drive. 1189 1190- 1194 1195- 1197 1198 1199- 1200 III. HISTORY FOR SANDRA KONNAD - 4458 DENBIGH ROAD: 33. Resolution #91-158. 34. Minutes - Mound City Council Meeting of October 22, 1991. 35. Minutes - Park and Open Space Commission Meeting of October 10, 1991. 36. Memorandum dated October 10, 1991 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting from Parks Director regarding"Application to Continue Use of Improvement on Public Land at 4458 Denbigh Road, Sandra Konnad." 37. Construction on Public Land Permit Application for Sandra Konnad with photograph. 38. Survey of 4458 Denbigh Road. IV. HISTORY FOR NED PODANY - 6165 SINCLAIR ROAD: 39. Resolution No. 91-109. 40. Letter to City Manager from City Attorney dated July 31, 1991 regarding Podany, 6165 Sinclair Road. 41. Minutes - Park and Open Space Commission Meeting of July 3 1201- 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206- 1207 1208 1209- 1212 1213- 1214 1215 1141 --C City Council Meeting of April 28, 1992 Agenda Item 14 Vo 11, 1991 - Ned Podany. 42. Minutes - Park and Open Space Commission Meeting June 13, 1991 regarding Encroachment onto Lagoon Park. 43. History dated July 11, 1991 relating to Garage Construction and Driveway Encroachment at 6165 Sinclair Road and Lagoon Park. 44. Staff Recommendation to Park and Open Space Commission June 13, 1991 from Park Director regarding Encroachment onto Lagoon Park. 45. Letter to Park and Open Space Commission dated June 11, 1991 from Ned and Karen Podany. 46. Maintenance Permit Application for Ned & Karen Podany. 47. Letter to Ned Podany from Park Director dated May 31, 1991. 48. Plat map showing Lagoon Park. GENERAL INFORMATION - HISTORY ANDATTORNEY'S OPINIONS: 49. Minutes - Mound City Council dated March 15, 1977 - Commons Maintenance and Permits. 50. Flow Chart for Granting of Construction and Maintenance Permit for Structures on Public Parks. 51. Resolution 78-372. 52. Resolutions 77-130, 77-131, & 77-132. 53. Letter to Mayor, Council and City Manager dated January 14, 1975 from the City Attorney regarding Commons. 54. Letter to Park Commission Chairman dated February 10, 1976 from City Attorney regarding Maintenance Permits for Structures on Commons. 55. Dedications as recorded on various plats. 1216 1217- 1218 1219 1220- 122i 1222 1223 1224 1225- 1226 1227 1228- 1232 1233- 1235 1236- 1242 t24~- 1249 1250- 1252 REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. BOX ~ MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009 PHONE (6t2) 472-2222 FAX (612) 472-2254 ROGER W. REED Real Properly I. aw .~oeclalisl° PAUL L POND Cerl/fled CivE Trial SpecJaEsl' APR April 1, 1992 RICHARD N. ~ UNOA ESENTHER DONALD F. NOACX. JR- KAY L iXlNN WI~kl)Y L LEWII /.~1 Ass~/a~ Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr. City Manager city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Reconsideration of Application for Permit for Construction on Public Lands 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN Dear Mr. Shukle: On behalf of Ms. Carole Munson, owner of the above referenced property, I request that the City Council reconsider its decision of December 10, 1991. In light of the City Council's previous decision involving new construction on the public land at 4458 Denbigh Road, Mound, (the "Konnad" property) where the owners were allowed to enjoy the use and benefits of a new deck for a total of seven years until 1993, it was arbitrary to require the removal of Ms. Munson's renovation of an existing patio. Please place this matter on the agenda of the April 28th city Council meeting for reconsideration. Your attention and assistance is appreciated. Very truly yours, Richard N. Indritz RNI:sp cc: Skip Johnson, Mayor CITY of , ,IOUND April 9, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: March 28, 1992 Memorandum to the City of Mound Dear Ms. Munson: It-is my understanding that Peggy James, Planning and Inspections Secretary has provided you with information that you requested in your March 28, 1992 memorandum. She indicated to me, however, that there was information that she did not provide to you because she did not have that information. Item #7, was a request for a copy of the new commons access city marker map. I am not sure what you are referencing. The city council has discussed the possibility of putting monuments at access locations on commons and public land areas. This matter has been tabled and hence, until the city council takes action on it, I will not provide it. Item #11, requested a written statement from the city council or Parks and Open.Space Commission minutes regarding: A) Purpose for the inventory for the encroachments, B) The date this inventory will be taken, C) The cost of this inventory, D) Where are the tax dollars being taken from to do this inventory? E) What is this inventory being used for? The City of Mound is making an attempt to inventory all encroachments on commons property. This inventory has already begun and will continue into early summer. The cost of this inventory is reflected in the commons dock system budget through the inspection services done by the city's dock inspector. Other assistance provided by the building official and the parks director will be reflected in the planning and inspection budget and the park budget. The purpose of the inventory is to identify what encroachments are on commons property and to begin a systematic process in which to have these encroachments follow the Construction on Public Lands process or the Maintenance Permit process. Both of these processes have been developed by staff and have been reviewed with the Parks and Open Space Commission and the City Council. !1,I Ms. Carole Munson April 9, 1992 Page 2 Item $12, referenced a copy of the City of Mound's statement of purpose with respect to the overall plan for commons property. This document does not exist. Item $13, referenced a copy of the most recent minutes and/or plan for the City of Mound commercial development of Lost Lake to rejuvenate the city of Mound economically and how the City of Mound justifies the development of wetlands while already developed commons property must decay and fall into disuse. Item $13, goes on to state that recent council and/or parks commission minutes will be helpful as related to the Lost Lake issue, and that you would appreciate an update on the acceptance of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to vacate the wetlands to the City of Mound for development. Lost Lake has a long history of attempts in which to make it both a commercial development an4 a residential development. The most recent attempt was undertaken in 1987, when the City of Mound was negotiating with a developer to put a country inn on the site. The country inn would have included a hotel, marina, restaurant, etc. The developer could not raise the necessary funds to develop the property. The City was making an effort to assist the developer through the use of tax increment financing to develop the site. Base4 upon the proposal, the valuation achieved through tax increment financing, would not raise the necessary tax increment to pay off the bonds (principal and interest) that would be issued on such a project. The City is working hard to develop the Lost Lake site. Of the 43 acres that the City owns on Lost Lake, only 3 acres is developable. Any past attempts at development at Lost Lake have included protection of the wetlands areas in accordance with the DNR requirements. The City realizes that it cannot build upon the wetlands, nor would it ever attempt to destroy the wetlands, both from an aesthetic standpoint as well as by state law. I am not sure what your analogy is in this particular issue. I hope the above information answers your questions. any further questions, please contact me. If you have City Manager cc:' Ji~ Fackler, Parks Director Jon Sutherland, Building Official ES: Is cc: Jim Jon Fran NAR 3 0 J92 TO: FROM: The City of Mound Carols Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, NN 55364 472-1676 DATE: March 28, 1992 I am hereby formally requesting the following information to be provided me in the next 48 hours. I request this information under the "Minnesota Government Data Practices Act", Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, which allows public access to public information. 1. The return of 4 photograph album pages of color photographs temporarily provided to the Mound City Council showing before and after pictures of enhancements to my property and given to City Council during the December 10 Council meeting. 2. A complete list of names and addresses and phone numbers of all Mound abutting Commons lakeshore owners. 3. A complete list of names and addresses and phone numbers of all Mound residents who hold dock permits. (Other than abutting lakeshore owners.) 4. A copy of all rules and regulations which apply to maintenance of commons land by lakeshore abutting owners. 5. A copy of document spelling out exactly what services our dock fees pay for, includJng salaries of ity employees working in dock program.~,__~{~?~ 7~?7 c _ 6. A copy of entire commons dock location map for 1992. 7. A copy of new Commons Access "city marker" map. 8. A copy of map showing all Commons property and their individual designations. 9. A copy of the "Charter" which turned over private property to the City of Mound, and which stipulates the authority of the City and its' responsibility with respect to the Commons land, as well as its' discretionary ability. 10. A copy of the original Maintenance Use Permit application process, and regulations regarding encroachments on Commons land, as well as any amendments made to that Maintenance Use program since the program began. 11. A written statement (perhaps from City Council or Parks & Open Space Commission minutes) regarding the : a) Purpose for the Inventory of Encroachments b) The date this inventory will be taken c) The cost of this inventory d) Where are the tax dollars being taken from to do this inventory ~ e) And what is this inventory to be used for? 12. A copy of the City of Mound Statement of Purpose with respect to an overall plan for Commons property. 13. A copy of the most recent minutes and/or plan for the City of Mound commercial development of Lost Lake to rejuvenate the City of Mound economically, and how the City of Mound justifies the development of Wetlands while already developed abutting Commons property must decay and fall into disuse. Recent Council and/or Parks Commission minutes would be helpful as related to the Lost Lake issue. I would most appreciate an update on the acceptance of DNR to vacate the Wetlands to the City of Mound for development. I appreciate your assistance with these matters, and will, of course, be happy to pay your copying charges for this information. Sincerely, Carole S, Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 472-1676 //4,,,,,, MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -FEBRUARY 18, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Smith, Ahrens, Jensen and Jessen. Also present: Tom Reese, LMCD Representative; Jon Sutherland, Building Official and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Tom Reese updated the Council on activities taking place within the LMCD. Among the items discussed was financial assistance for fighting Eurasian Water Milfoil and Zebra Mussel. Long term management plan, lake access and questions raised by the Council and staff with regard to parking along Bartlett Boulevard, LMCD permit process and shore lights was discussed. Reese announced he will not be seeking a reappointment to his term which expires in just over two years. The next item discussed was commons markings. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented information supplied by Jim Fackler, Parks Director, with regard to marking access points with public land with monuments on commons and other public lands. After considerable discussion, it was the direction of the Council to have staff prioritize the 50+ monuments that would have to be installed and bring back to a future COW meeting. Along with that, have some suggestions on how it could be paid for. There was division amongst the Council on whether it should be paid for out of commons funds or other city funds. Jori Sutherlan~l Was present to present some information regarding the Maintenance Permit process and Construction on Public Lands Permit application process as it relates to commons. He distributed some information developed by Jim Fack!.~, Parks Director, Peggy James and Jon Sutherland. He outlined a veh/si~ecific P~6cess On how encroachments were going to be dealt with. He indicated that staff was going to take an inventory of encroachments on public lands this spring and would be calling attention to the property owners any problems that they saw, A check list for Public Lands Permit would' be completed on any encroachments or persons applying for building on public lands. A public lands status sheet would be completed indicating authorized encroachments, unauthorized encroachments and the actual permit for public lands, whether it be construction on public lands or public land maintenance permit or a permit for land alteration. Council consensus was to follow this procedure. The proposed rental housing ordinance was discussed. The Council agreed to establish April 28, 1992 as the public hearing date for the ordinance. City staff will continue to refine the implementation process and will be discussing this issue with city council prior to the public hearing. The city attorney is also in the process of preparing an executive summary of the proposed rental housing ordinance. Discussion was also held with regard to the truth in the sale of housing ordinance being discussed at the Planning Commission level. The direction from the Council was to have the Planning Commission recommend a standard following the City of Minneapolis ordinance indicating that they are not interested in code compliance issues with regard to this type of an ordinance. ()f ,X IOL December 17, 1991 Ms. Carole Hunson q729 Island View Drive Hound, MN 5536q Re: Council Action on your Request for a Construction on Public Lands Permit Dear Ms. Munson: The City Council action o~' Tuesday, December 10, 1991, regarding the above, was to approve a three year Haintenance Permit for the playhouse, boathouse, stairway and retaining wall on the Public Commons area abutting your property. The Council action t'urther stated that the deck is to be removed within 6 months or' the December 10, 1991 meeting which is June 10, 1992. X would suggest that. you come tn and work with Jori Sut. herland, Building Ot't'tctal and Jim Fackler, Parks Director, on the remova! o/' the deck within the time period stated by the City Council. The three year maintenance permit wi1! expire December 10, 199q. Sincerely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Hanager ce: Jon Sutherland, Building Offlelal Jim Fackler, Parks Director ~ prinEed on recycled paper [ / ~ ~ MXMUTBS - MOUND CXTY COUNCXL- DBCBKBRit X0,XggX 1.11 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT FOR THE ¢ONSTRUCTZON ON PUBLIC LANDc FOR CAROL8 MUNSON, 4729 XBLARD VIEW DRIVe_ - The Building Official explained that this is also an after-the- fact Construction on Public Lands Permit application to alloy the following improvements: a. Deck. b. Stairway to lake. c. Shoreline riprap. Pre-existing structures that 372 were: a. Boathouse. b. Playhouse ¢0 were recognized by Resolution J78- Timber retaining wall (now hidden under deck). The applicant, Carols Munson, explained that the real estate person who sold her the property mislead her when she purchased the property in October 1988. She was told she owned the playhouse, the boathouse and the land between. Her understanding was that the beach and the shoreline were Commons, not the are· that she improved. She did not apply for a Building Permit for the deck because it was her understanding that no permit was required for a deck less that 30 inches free grade. Ms. Munson presented pictures of the area before and after the improvements. Richard Indritz, attorney representing Ms. Munson, spoke in her behalf, stating that all the subject improvements were existing and were Just fixed-up. The size of the improvements were not increased. MOTION made by Abrams, seconded b~ Smith to approve · Maintenance Permit for 3 years for the plaxhouso, boathouse, deck, stairway, end retaining walls. There was discussion by the Council on this and the previous request and being consistent. Ms. Munson read the Affidavit of Frank Ahrens, stating that new deck was an improvement to pre-existing conditions on the property. The vote was 2 in favor with Jonson, Josson and Johnson voting nay, Motion faiX.. #OTIOM made by Jossen seconded by Jenson to approve 8 3 Tear Haintenance Permit for the playhouse, boathouse, staizvaT and retaining wall, but requiring that the desk I~ removed within 6 monthm of that date of thio meeting (June lO, 1t92). The vote vas m in favor with Ahrens and Smith voting naT. Motion carried, DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT:. LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBdECT:- CITY of MOUND STAFF REpORT 524' December i0, 1991 City Council Meeting City Council, Applicant and Staff Building Official ~' Jori Suther land, Carol· Munson 4729 Island View Drive Lot 6, Block 7, Devon PI0 #30-117-23 22 0054 Construction on Public Lands Permit BACKGROUND The applicant ts seeking an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the improvements as listed below to ren~ain on the dedicated public Devon Commons area. 1. l n~rovements observed by staff at site inspection: Deck· Stairway to lake. Shoreline riprap. Pre-existing structures recognized by City in Resolution #78-372 (attached: COMMENTS Boathouse. Playhouse. Timber retaining wall (now hidden under deck?). This type of issue has been before previous city councils and our city attorney has written two comprehensive opinion letters stat- ing, in part, that private use of public land should be dis- couraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity. Also, that permanent structures should be removed at the earliest time· ~ECOMMENDATION The City Council recognizes this area of commons was donated and dedicated to the public for the public use forever by the Tuxedo Park Company in the year 1911. StaFF Report Carole Munson Page 2 Complete removal of the deck by the applicant at his or her own expense within ninety (90) days of City Council ap- proval. The existing boathouse and playhouse have now been brought to the attention of city staff and are current violations of City Code Section 320:00 and should now be brought into con- formance with the City Code and removed within a reasonable time as determined by the City Council. NOTE: Removal of any structure on commons property requires a land alteration permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivi- sion 4. JSJpj 1151 NOUND ADVIEORY PARK AND OPEN EPACE COM](I88ION HOVEMBER 14, 1991 ~ONSTRUCTXON (~N pUBLIC LAND8 ~Ei~XT AppLICATION, BY; ~ h R 0 L B K~SON, 4729 lE~ VIEW DRX~ On August 8, 1978, Resolution 78-372 was approved by the City Council which included the subject property. This resolution ap- proved a Maintenance Pe~it renewable up to 3 years for the ex- isting playhouse, boathouse, and stai~ay; and renewable up to 5 years for the retaining wall. Any repair, improvements or changes to this public land or the existing structures must comply with City Code Section 320:00, Improvements to Public ~nds. A new deck, stai~ay, retaining wall and riprap has since been constructed on the subject property. The applicant is seeking approval of an after-the-fact Const~ction on ~blic ~nds pe~it to allow these improvements to remain. Staff reco~ended the following: 1. Renewing the Maintenance Permit for the boathouse, playhouse, stai~ay, an~ retaining wall for three years. This permit allows these structures to remain for three years from the date of City Council approval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be reviewe4 again. If the o~er wishes to improve these st~ctures, a separate Maintenance Pe~it is re~ired. 2. ~e new deck must ~ removed from City property within 30 days of City Council approval. 3. ~ after the fact pe~lt for the riprapping must be applied for with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Applicant, Carole Munson, reviewed the histo~ of her re~est. She bought her property in October 1988 and referred to phot~raphs which the secretary handed out. She never heard of commons before and she was told she owned the playhouse, the boathouse and the land between. The hillside at the shoreline was full of debris. The stai~ay and landing was in a hazardous condition. She referred to a concrete deck which previously ex- isted which was also unsafe. She has since done a lot of clean up to the area. It was her understanding that pe~its were not required for decks less than 30 inches from grade, which she believes the deck is not. A 3 foot high retaining walls was con- st~cted. Her neighbors use the deck when she is out of to~ and it is utilized more now than before it was improved. A workable plan needs to be established for those people who live on the co~ons. No one can access the colons in front of her property from the street. She stated that the deck structure was improved from what was previously there for decades and made it look bet- ter. Munson co~ented on the costs incurred to go through this process, which include a su~ey, legal counsel, and the cost of improvements. '~~~ . P ers existing, they were only fixed-up. The size of the improvements were not increased. To ~cation, he does not believ~ w~, ~A__.,. ~. deny this ap- !!~[ this shoreland. - .... ~=.,,., ~ne public use of Park Director, Jim Fackler, referred to Resolution 78-372 which recognized the existing structures on this property as a playhouse, boathouse, stair~ay, and retaining wall. A patio may · ~ have been installed at one time after the approval of this resolution. In addition, it has not been determined yet, by the Building Official if th~ deck Is in fact less that 30 inch~s from grade, ther~for~ a building P~it ~ay still be re~ired. r~eo~nd~tion~ R~r~qraph on~ only. ~hr~ns seconded. The reason for the ~otion was ~estion~d. Bailey com~en~ed that sh~ should lik~ to address each paragraph separately because she is definit~ly in favor of il, she would like to further discuss t2 du~ to a possibl~ discrepancy, and sh~ does not b~li~ve 13 aR- plies to the ~aintenanc~ NOTION failed 6 to 1. Those in favor were~ Bailey. Those opposed wore~ Casey; Andersen; &sleson, Byrnes, 8ohidt, and Ahrens. staff roconendation. approve NOTION made by Casey, seconded by Asleson, to Bailey cemented again on her previous motion, she se arate because of the fact that if ~-- ........ P d it -,,o~ flew aecK Is tae same dimension of the original concrete structure, she would approve it, hovever, it sounds that the deck may first re ire pernit and may need to -o t~ -- ..... qu a buildina ~ ~ ,.e p~annlnq co~lssion first - Asleson questioned what type of deck structure actually existed, was it a concrete slab? a patio? Hr. Indrttz stated that the original structure was "concrete covered with flagstone. W Frank Ahrens who has lived in the neighborhood since 1976 com- mented that the subject property did have a wooden deck in 1976, and all the other improvements were also there. Asleson commented on the intent of the maintenance permits is that when improvements on public property deteriorates and more than 50 percent of the value of the improvements to repair it, then it should be removed and the land returned back to its original condition, maybe landscaping will be required, but it does not mean that it can be re-improved and spend a lot of money by putting up a deck. If the abutting property owner would have come to the City first the City would have worked with the property owner on deciding on the best use for that property. Asleson called for the question: NOTION failed 3 to 4. Those ~n favor wero~ Casey, As- loson, Bailey, Those opposed worez 8chm~dt, Anderson, B~r~es and Ihr~n~. This case will be heard by.the City Council on December 10, 1991. CERTIFIED MAll. RETURN RECEH)T November 12, 1991 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 'Re: Violation of MCWD Rule Dear Ms. Munson: We have received information from the City of Mound which indicates that you have constructed a rlprap wall for which a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required. Enclosed please find a copy of the District rules and permit application form. Please note that Rule % F specifies no person shall construct a shoreline improvement to prevent erosion, such as riprap or retaining wall, or for any other purpose, such as boat ramps and sand blankets, without first securing a permit. Accordingly, you are hereby notified that you are in violation of District rules. The exhibits required to demonstrate conformance with District standards are specified in the rules. The required information is to be submitted to the District within 10 days of receipt of this letter to be reviewed at the next meeting of the C~mplain~iolations Committee. Plense note thnt under Rule J of the District rules, any person who performs any work requiring a permit from the District without first securing a permit shall pay to the District a fee equal to the District's actual costs of field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, and any subsequent monitoring of the work. If you require any additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact us at 473-4224. Sincerely, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District Peter R. Fryer, En/gineer crs CC: Board file Violations Committee Jim Fackler, City of Mound C. Strauss, DNR /tsq CI'FY of N'IOL Nl) :'34- ,.'- .,COD DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM November 14, 1991 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park Commission and Applicant Jim Fackler, Park Director~.~/ 4729 Island View Drive (Lot'6, Block 7, Devon) Carole Munson Devon #42314 C - non-treversible Construction on Public Lands (aFter-the-Fact) Permit APplication BACKGROUND On August 8, 1978, Resolution 78-372 was approved by the City Council which Included the subject property. This resolution approved a Maintenance Permit renewable up to 3 years For the existing playhouse, boathouse, and stairway; and renewable up to 5 years For the retaining wall. Any repair, improvements or changes to this public land or the existing structures must comply with City Code Section 320:00, Improvements to Public Lands. A new deck, stairway, retaining wall and riprap has since been constructed on the subject property. The applicant is seeking approval oF an aFter-the-Fact Construction on Public Lands permit to allow these improvements to remain. R~ECOMMENDATION Staff reco~nends renewing the Maintenance Permit For the boathouse, playhouse, stairway, and retaining wall For three years. This permit allows these structures to remain For three years From the date of City Council aPproval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be reviewed again. IF the owner wishes to improve these structures, a separate Maintenance Permit is requirecl. The new deck must be removed From City property within 30 days of City Council a~M~roval. e pJ An after the Fact permit For the riprapping must be aPplied For with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNF$OTA 55364-1587 1612) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 ~ovember 6, 1991 Mr. Ron Quambeck MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387 Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Riprap at 4729 Island View Drive Dear Mr. Quambeck: Enclosed is a copy of an application to the City of Mound for an after-the- fact permit for Construction on Public Lands from Carole Munson, 4729 Islamd View Drive. As you will note, she makes reference to a riprapping project done without a permit. Since the City does not issue permits for projects under the elevations controlled by the Watershed, will you please look into this matter. JF:pJ cc: Jon'Sutherland, Building Official enclosures print~ on recycled paper NOV 5 1991 CITY OF HOUND 5341 PIAYWC)OD ROAD PIOUND PIN 55364 -~. O'reck One |-~| CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERPIIT AF~ICATIC)N ,--___, PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPt-iCATION CONTINUING THE PRESENT USE OF A STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS OR COMMONS ADDRESS:~ NAME OF COMMONS:_ ADDITION:., DESCRIBE REQUEST: DAY PHONE :_C~ ~ I- DOCKSITE #: BLOCK ____~ REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR ! HPROVEHENT _ TREE TRIMMING _ CHENICAL TREATI~:NT OF VEGETATION --~ REC~JEST NEW CONSTRUCTION OR ! HPRO~HENT -- _ UNDER-BRUSH TRIMMING EXPLAIN: ~r - x~"~- ~.~- A~_~,_ '_. _~ ~ APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING: !. ~e site plan dr~n to scale showing dimensl~s e~ I~atl~ oF the ex- Isting or pr~s~ structure/l~rov~ent. 2. T~ oF ch~icel end ~t~ to be us~. 3. ~, ~dress, ~ P~ne n~er oF c~trector performl~ services. 4. ~e set of plans end specifications of sufficient clarity e~ detail to I~lcate the ~ture and extent of the structure or I~rov~nt. 5. ~t~rephs oF t~ existing structure In ne~ of re. ir, or of the f~t~ area. gnature of ~ppl I - m/ Dated bUILL)IN t' l fill At't'LI AII N City OF H0~, 5341 ~~ Road, ~ound~ ~ 55364 (~72-1155) 8 Clauol~k: ~NEW OAOOITION OALTERATION ~REPAIR OUOVE OREMOVE ~REPNCE I ~ECIAL C~OITIONS: Type of ~cu~y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$~ ~. ~Tot~usG. ~t s~o,m occ.~o~ OFFST~EET PARKING No. of Special Approvals R~u,~d Rece~v~ Not R~uired E~IRED FOR ELECT~. ~BI~. H~TI~, ZONING ~TI~ ~ AIR C~OlT~I~ ~ ~ H[ALT H DEPT. ~ PERMIT ~ES N~L ~D ~I~IF ~K OR ~STR~T~ A~ F,RE DE~T. _ R~DIS ~T ~E~ED WITHIN 1~ DAYS. ~ IF ~STR~T~ ~ ~RK ~O~L 5 ~SPENOED ~ ~ED F~ A PER~ ~ I~ DAYS AT ~ T~E ~ER ~K ~ME~EO. OTHER I ~REBY CERT~ ~T I ~E RE~ ~D E~INED THIS ~~ ~O ~ ~E ~ TO BE TR~ ~0 ~RECT. ~L P~S ~ ~ ~ ~ES ~ERNI~ THIS ~ ~ ~K W~ ~ ~O ~TH ~HER ~ECIFIEO HERE~ OR ~T. ~E G~I~ ~ A PE~ff ~ S ~T ~E TO G~ AUT~RI~ ~ v~TE ~ C~EL ~ P~ ~ ~ O~ER ~TATE OR L~AL ~W REG~T~ ~STR~T~ ~ ~ ~ 9~74 JO/llT,"/j ML~NSON. CAROL ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. ~Rvl~¥1:Em= CAROL MUNSON NOV 13 I~1 1150 4 ?::,,:/.; ,..;.,.;-.;..:, pr~?~r ljjE-i' ONlt/X N GOVT L OT'I " Devon 37870 Carole Hunson 12-2B-88 Lot 6 Block 7 30-117-23 22 0054 Survey_ .no R-2 October 21, 1991 CITS' ()f NIOUNI) Ms. Carol Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: Construction on Public Lands Dear Ms. Munson: This letter is notification to you that your violations to City Code Section 330 relating to construction on public lands will be reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission at their regular meeting on November 14, 1991. Your cooperation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. A letter from Building Official, Jori Sutherland, dated August 20, 1991 was mailed to you requesting that the appropriate application to allow construction and maintenance of structures on public land be submitted to our office. Once again, we are requesting that this application be submitted, a form is enclosed. The following information is required to be submitted with the application: 1. A survey/site plan as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. 2. A complete list of the work completed and proposed on public lands. 3. Plans/drawings as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. This information must be submitted by November 1, 1991. If you have any questions, or need assistance with preparing for your application, please contact Jon Sutherland, Peggy James, or myself. ///'~im_Fas~ler // Parks Director pJ Enclosures cc: Jori Sutherland, Building Official Ed Shukle, City Manager printed on recycled paper CIT]' ()I' ,\ IOL',X'I) August 23, 1991 I1'11 Ms. Carol Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: SITE INSPECTION ON 8-7-9I RELATING TO CITY CODE AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Dear Ms. Munson: On August 7, 1991 a site Inspection was conducted by this office and the Parks Department at the above mentioned address, it was discovered at that time rip rap was Installed and a stairway and deck were construction on Devon Com~x>ns abutting your pretty. A building permit Is required for the deck by Mound City Code Section 300 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 301. A Construction on Public Lands Permit Is also required by Mound City Code Section 320. The Following InFormtlon Is required to be submitted with your building permit aPplication and construction on public lands per- mit application: !) A survey/site plan drawn to scale shown all setbacks From the property lines to all buildings on site indicating the existing dwelling prior to construction of the addition (all property stakes shall be exposed For inspection to verify setbacks). 2) 3) A complete list of work completed and proposed. Plans drawn to scale In sufficient clarity to detail the completed and proposed work, Including a Floor plan, eleva- tions and cross section. I have Included the appropriate City Cc~e and Building Code sec- tions regarding construction on public land permits, ~lntem~nce permits and building permits. Also Included ts a copy of a sur- vey con~leted in 1974 of the c~z~nons area that confirms Your Ix>at house and stairway Is on public property. Ignorance of these regulations creates an excessive burden on staff and the community, ! would appreciate It If you ~ould copy this letter to the contractor Involved In doing this work, Ms. Carol Munson August 23, 1991 Page 2 if you have any questions, please contact myself= or Peggy James at this depar~ Jon Sutherland Butldlng Official JS~pJ Enclosures cc= Jim Fackler, Parks Olrector CITY OF MOUND INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO. CALLED-IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED ~)' ii ADDRESS ~ TELEPHONE'NO. FOOTING ~ PLUMBING RI FRAMING ~ MECHANICAL INSULATION ~ WATER HOOKUP WALL BD. ~ METER SET/TURN ON FINAL ~ SEWER HOOKUP PROGRESS ~ SEPTIC INSTALL. DEMOL. : SEPTIC MAINT. FIRE PREV. -~ PLUMBING FINAL CONTR. TIME SITE INSPECTION EXCAV./GRADINGIFILLING [] LAKESHORE/WETLANDS [] COMPLAINT [] FOLLOW-UP [-] SEPTIC FINAL * ~ORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED O~T~ ~ ..... ~ ' CORRECT WORK & PROCEED CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN. ~STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR. ~NSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. call for the next Inspection 24 ~n~dvance. Owner/Contr. on site Inspector ~ 155 Gold Copy/Site Notice White Copy/Inspecto¢$ File II?$ August 8, 1978 Councilmember Wlthhart moved the follc~ving resolution, RESOLUTION 78-372 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF HAINTENANCE PERMITS AS SUBMITTED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR AND REVIEWED BY THE PARK COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Dock Inspector has submitted maintenance permit requests for different types of structures and buildings on the corar,~ns, and WMEREAS, the Park Commission has made recommendation with regard to repair, maintenance and the removal of certain structures, and WHEREAS, an Itemized listing of structures or buildings, street locatlon and types of action recommended can be found in the Mound Advisory Park Commission minutes of 7-27-78. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby authorize and direct the approval and Issuance, of maintenance permits as submitted by the Dock In- spector and reviewed by the Park Commission. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded by Councllperson Fenstad, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swanson and ~ithhart, the follow- lng voted agalnst the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. ~ayor ~ 1 'Tq Minutes of MOUND ADVISORY PARK COI,~ISSION July 27, ]978 PRESEt;T: Chairman Hal Larson, Pat Shay, Toni Case, Cathy Bailey, Jon' Lynott, Dock Insp. Don Rother, Sec. Karene Uhe This meeting was a continuation of the 7/20/78 meeting. .. ~.. COi~.TONS MAINTE,)[ANCE PE~.[ITS Address on Island View Dr. Encroac.hment on Co~-nons ~547. Retaining wall Iron Post 16A Boat wench ~609 Stairway 16A ~6~? Stairway ~6A ~ Stairway ~6A 6~ Playhouse ~6A ~J~5 Stairway ] 6A Retaining wall Light post 16A g6~9 'i -. -. ' :.'~" Followed thru Additional ' "': :"' ~'~:':'~'~' to flo~v chart ~ Co~ents Chain on commons to'be..removed.. ., · .: .... .: .'.. -..-/~,'~' Needs railtng~ both sides *:' ..... : ~-. ;. :... .-::: '.' ,~.' '' '...,~.. ,: :?.e'_ ~ .!-.~.¢~ : To be painted earthtone color, Needs rs~tlings on both si~es." (No permit ~as requested, however a shed does exist on commons and should be removed.) -. ...'- Storage rack 16B Flower box 16B Lamp post 16A Concrete walkway 16A Sidewalk 16A Stairway 16A Stair way 16A Retaining wall 16 · Stairway 16A Stairr/ay 16A Retaining wall 16 S truc ture 16A Permit for up to 60 days o~ly.* .' · ..-.. ::'-~.~z~,. · " .%'*~".'*.~:~a~. ' ·.....~- -*'. ..... ..~_..~4 · .. .-.,~..~..-, . . ,. * ..,- ~.. = ;,.~, ~- -:. ~:, .... ,..... :~.~-~.~-' . . ... ~ ~.'..~...~-..~ . · * ": · '" ....· ~.1~.- .~-: ' . "..'.~-%.~s~ Needs eaillngs onbo%h sides .~*~"* all tho ~'ay ~o the To be ~ainted oaethtone coloe. S fairway 16A Guest house 2A Needs railings on both sides.' 11'15 ~a6e 2 Park Minutes Deck Pumphouse 16A Stairway 16A Playhouse Boathouse 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 To be painted earthtone color, Needs railings on both sides. To be painted earthtone col0r~ To be painted earthtone color.:.~- TO be painted earthtone c°lor.':'~. Boathouse 16A Stairway 16A Patio 16A To be painted earthtone color.';j Needs railings on both sides.'" ...~'~,'.~;~ 4815 _4_817~ 4849 Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Boathouse 16A Retaining wall Stairway Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Walk 16A Retaining wall 16 Needs railings on both sides, . '['.' '" "':::';'.~r' Needs railings on both Sides', 'i'.~'~! '.. · .~...- ~'.:'.' i: Needs railings on both sides. '"~;';'(':'. Needs railings on both sides. i ~ .-'-."::'->..-'~'j'" '.-..~.~ ~ '~;'~:': ' ._ '.:?..'.'. '. .'/';; .' Needs railings on both sides and break to allow passage through, To be painted earthtone color, Wall is in non-repairable conditi~ .. Needs railings on lower part on both sides. '.u ~-. . "'-~P' · · -. Needs railings on both sides.":':~ (No permit request has been received. . . ? ~.:-.....-,,,::~.~.,.~.~..~,:.: · . .. ~ .- ~,,. ,..':~,#. . . . .-j."~f; ~./: :/.: . . .:.::~,.,.%' ~.?~' ..... . - . ~'?.. Reco~end action ":'( by City Council to enforce Ordinance.) Fish house Remove from commons. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides and repair work. Retaining ~all 16 Needs repair work done. (General clean-up is recommended as soon as possible.) · '... '. ~ ~-'~'. P&rk Minutes ?/2?/?8 ~ Stairway 16A Shed 16A -~909 Stairway ]6A ~ Stairway 16A /+91 ? · Stairway '16A ~9kl S tairway 16A Retaining wall 16 ~92~ Stairway 16A Shed 4931. Stairway 16A ~ Stair~?ay !6A ~94~ Stairway 16A ~athouse ~ 6A ~94~ Fence 16B ~ Flag ~le 16A To be painted an earthtone · o be painted an earthtone color.: · :'- .;" :'.~.,~ -, -'-,; -'4:,~. :. · Remove from commons. Needs railings on both sides'. ,,7..'.'.' '. ,. :.:'~ Needs railings on both stdes.~ Needs'railings on both si.des...'." . -..'. ..':.'...:.:i~-... Permit for up to one year only..' ...'.- .'.....':, ,'- - . *'Larson moved that the above list be recommended to the City Council as listed for their action on the Maintenance Permits from Devon Commons. Shay seconded and vote was unanimous. LB ' ino , intenance permits for structures on public landS'/'i'.?:". up to 3 yrs. non-renewable. Permit to be checked annually. / ....'7%.. Seperate legal review,. / ON ~KE MINH~ON~ INDIAN BURIAL MOUND~ 534) MAY~OD ROAD TELEPHONE MOUNO. MINNESOTA 55364 {612) 472-] ]55 Hatch 17, 1978 RoberL Niner-Public Works Director Don Rother-Dock Inspector Nalntenance Peumits for use of Commo~ Erickson, Steve; h?O~ Island Viev Dr. - Steps & Retain;n9 Wall/ Zentnicks, John; hTh7 Island Viev Dr. - Stairway/ Finn, Joyce; ~ ~sIand Viev Dr. - Boathouse & Playhouse/ Harvey, Fred; hgh~ Island View Dr. - Boathouse & StepS" Damp;er, Mm.; h8~3 Island Viev Dr. Boathouse & Ste~~' Pierce, Geo.; h717 Island Viev Dr. - Guest house & Stairmmy Vraspir, J.; h711 Island Vi~Dr. - Steps, Wall &.enclosure fo~r sprinkler system Zuhle, Jim; hSo~ Island Vi~Dr. - Boathouse, Stair~a~ ~rall Carlson, Kurt; h771 Island View Dr..- Steel Huesman, Pat; h718 Island Vie~Dr. Stai.-~ray~ 7 Ludden, Fred; h617 Island View Dr. - Wooden Stairs~ McNillan, Ralpp; h909 Island Vie~ Dr~ - Staiz~ay...- Pixler, O~le; h913 Island View Dr. - Stairway & Terrace - Wilson, Bob; h32~ Island View Dr. - Stairway & hx§ house Yeidenbach! Paul; h763 Island Vie~ Dr. - SLair~rey Butw~ Ed; h931 Island View Dr. - Stair~ray ~' . Sholden, C; h?h3 Island Vie~Or: - Stairway~' Xucera, C.; h§17 Island Vie~Dr. - Naynes, Dean; h62~ Island View Dr. - $taiz-aa¥ ~ Touba~ A.; h609 Island Vie~ Or. - Stairway ~ VanV~erah, O~i hgh9 Island View Dr. - Fence Chain Link,- $oderman, A.~ h767 Island View Dr. - Stair~m¥ & Landing-- lelson, l.; h6h9 Island Vie~t Dr. - Playhouse / OSLettin~ Ed; h833 Island View Or. - Stairs & Walk" gorstren~ Ron; h~? Island View Dr. - Flagpole/- //77 CI'I" ' ,\ IOL'NI) December 17, 1991 Mr. Dean Hanus q737 Island View Drive Mound, MN 5536~ Re: Council Action on Your Request for a Construction on Public Lands Permit Dear Mr. Hanus: At the City Counell meeting of Tuesday, December 10, 1991, the Council voted to deny your application f'or a permit for Construction on Publle Lands. The action taken was to deny a Construction on Public Lands Permit and approving the staf'l',s recommendation as £ollows: 1. The City Council recognizes that this public Commons area was dedicated by Tuxedo Park Company on September 12, 1911 2. Complete removal of' the boathouse and deck. ' 3. Regradlng and landscaping of th~ area according to specll~lcations prepared by the Park Director and City £ngi neet. q. The coat of such removal, grading and landscaping be the responsibility o£ the applicant. 5. The applicant and abutting owner may claim and remove any structure or portion thereof' from the City Commons property and may remove it £rom Commons property after obtaining the required permit from the Building Off/cia1 and at the applicant's own expense. Note: Remora! of' a structure or boathouse would require a Land Alteration Permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivision 4. Please note that the permit fee for the Land Alterations Permit will be waived. The Councll,s action specifically stated that the boathouse and deck are to be removed within 6 months of' the date of the Clty Council meeting, which will be June 10, 1992. 1 prinled on recycled paper Dean Hanus December 17, 1991 I would suggest that you come in and work with Jon Sutherland, Building Official and Jim Fackler, Parks Director to accomplish the above items that the building official had recommended to the City Council and the City Council adopted. Edward ~. Shukie, Jr. City Manager cc: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director ES:is 2 iSUB, IECT > Xle~fll - NO~4D Clf{f COffMCXL - DIC{iX}II ~e ~ildi~ Official e~l~ln~ that ~e applicant i..eeki~ after-the-fact Const~cti~ on ~lio ~ Pe~It to tllw foll~i~ to ruain~ · . ~athousl improve~nte, includi~ ~idi~, windows, nee d~r, inside vail finish, counter top with · ink, cabinets, a~ electri~l wiring for fixtures outletl. b. ~ck. c. seal.ay to lake. d. Retainl~ e. Shorel ins rlprap. ~e follovl~ were pre-exlsti~ st~ctures that vert rec~ni=~ by the City in Resolution {7{-37{ based on a survey of the Co~onl = · · ~athoust b. Stai~ay c. Patio ~e Flow Cha~ action that vas given to these items vel "Maintenance Petit renewable up to 3 years continent u~n the city'~ use plan. Ney o~ers may make application for ~intenance ~it~.' The City Attorney explained that when this survey of private structural on public land Vel done lg Vel to discourage and resinate the practice at the earliest opportunity, i.e. that ps.anent It~ctures, '~athouses, living ~arters, etc. should removed at the earliest time. He almo reminded the Council that city officlal~ are trustees for ill the ~ublic and therefore private utiligation of p~llc lands should ~ discouragd re. Snared mt the earliest op~rtunlty. ~e Park Director explmin~ that the const~ction of ~e deck rem~eli~ of the ~athouse ca~ to the Clty'~ attention fr~ another i~lvldual who vas denied an ~p~lication for I d~k on the Co--hi in front of hi~ ho.. Wike Wueller s~ke ~tati~ that If there vas a ~th in C~e in the City of Wou~, ~ro~ctivt buyerl would k ivart that they wire buyi~ pro. ray abutting Co--ns a~ that ~ey ned Maintenance Pe~it for any encr~chments thmt ~xi~t on Co~. Wark Hanus, 4446 ~nbigh W~d, stat~ th~t he does ~t feel Waintenance Pe~i~ system h~s ~rk~. · he Council pointed out that if Dean Banus had applied for }uildi~ h~it which vas re~lr~, the Maintenance ~it system v~ld have worked. ~ ~uilding Official recom~nded= 1. ~e City Council rec~nizes that this public Co~ons vas dedicated by ~xedo Park Company on Septe~er 12, 1{11. 1. Co~pletl removal of the boathouse and deck. 3. Wegradlng and landscaping of the area according to specifications prepared by the Park Director and City Engineer. 4. The cost of such removal, grading and landscaping '~ responsibility of the applicant. 5. ~e ~pplicanZ a~ abutti~ o~er may clai~ a~ remove any · t~cturl or portion thereof from thl Cie Co~o and ~a re~ove Y ns prope~ Y it from Co.one re er Y required uer~it t.~- - ...... ~-.P t~_~t~r obtllnl the applicant'; own ,x;;;~,.'"' -ual=lng official ,nd ~ N~Z= Removal of a st~cture or boathouse would re~lre Land Alteration Per,it per City Code Section S~lvlslon 4. Councll~e~er ~rens a~ S~lth voiced op~sitlon to the re~al of the deck I~ boathouse. DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBJECT: CITX " (if ,XlOL ND STAFF REPORT December 10, 1991 City Council Meeting City Council, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Dean Hanus 4737 Island View Drive Lot 7, Block 7, Devon PID #30-117-23 22 0055 Construction on Public Lands Permit BACKGROUND (Please note the application does not include all Improvements noted by City Staff.) The applicant Is seeking an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the improvements as listed below to remain. All improvements have been completed without prior approval and in violation of City code Section 320, Uniform Building Code Sec- tion 301, and also the State Plumbing and Electrical Code permit requirements· When this property was First inspected by City staff on August 7, 1991, the boathouse had been remodeled and it resembled a one room cabin with complete kitchen Facilities including a counter top, sink, and cabinets, a bed was set up and the building ap- peared to be used for habitation. Also noted on the attached Inspection Notice a stop work order was issued For an 8' x lO' addition to Front of the principal dwelling. 1. Improvements observed by staff at site inspection: Boathouse improvements, including: siding, reroof, windows, new door, inside wall finish, counter top with sink, cabinets, and electrical wiring For Fixtures and outlets. Deck. Stairway to lake. Retaining walls. Shoreline riprap. printed on recycled paper Staff Report Dean Hanus Page 2 Pre-existing structures recognized by City in Resolution #78-372 (attached)· a. Boathouse. b. Stairway. c. Patio. This case was before the Park Commission on November 14. The Park Director's recommendation was as stated in the attached minutes of the November 14 Park Commission Meeting. There was considerable discussion and two motions by the Park Con~ission, both of which failed. Staff's recommendation was not supported by the Park Commission. COMMENTS This type of issue has been before previous city councils, and our city attorney has given us comprehensive opinion letters on the private use of public lands. In part, he states that private use of public lands should be discouraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity. Also, that permanent structures, boathouses, living quarters, etc. should be removed at the ear- liest time. ,RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Following: The City Council recognizes that this public commons area was dedicated by Tuxedo Park Company on the 12th day of Sep- tember 1911. Complete removal of the boathouse and deck. Re-grading and landscaping of the area according to specifications prepared by the Parks Director and City En- gineer. The Cost of such removal, grading, and landscaping be the responsibility of the applicant. StaFf Report Dean Hanus Page 3 The Applicant and abutting owner may claim and remove any structure or portion thereof From the City commons property and may remove it From commons property after obtaining the required permit from the Building OFFicial and at the applicant's own expense. Note: Removal of a structure or boathouse would require a Land Alteration Permit per City Code Section 320, Subdivi- sion 4. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Based on this case and analysis of the original dedication of the commons areas, it is recommend that the City Council approve the Following ordinance modification to City Code Section 320:00: Subd. 4. Land Alteration and structure ren~)val. (add "and Structure Removal" to heading) Add the Following as a second paragraph to Subd. 4.: "Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building OF- Ficial under any code or law may proceed under the su- pervision and direction of the City Building OFFicial without the necessity For obtaining removal permits From the City Council." JS:pj CITY OF MOUND CALLED.IN INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED PERMIT NO. COMPLETED ow. . .,.t3jW, m E LE P H O I~E"~O'. D/ TIME CONTR. ~- FOOTING "- FRAMING ~ INSULATION ----. WALL BD. ~ FINAL ,~ PROGRESS DEMOL. ~ FIRE PREV. PLUMBING RI MECHANICAL WATER HOOKUP METER SET/TURN ON SEWER HOOKUP SEPTIC INSTALL. SEPTIC MAINT. PLUMBING FINAL i~SE I T E INSPECTION XCAV./G RADING/FILLING ~ LAKESHORE/WETLANDS [] COMPLAINT [] FOLLOW-UP [~ SEPTIC FINAL _VV_O_F~_ _~'_A_ T I S'F A C'T O R y: PROC"E ED- .~ WORK & PROCEED CORRECT WORK. CA L L FO R R E, N S PECTiON B E F O'R E COV-E"~i~,r '~'--7 ,) RRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN. P ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR. Owner/Contr. on site ?./ - L./' ~ Inspector Gold Copy/Site Notice White Copyllnepector'e File CONSTRUCTION ON pUBLiC l~qD8 PERMXT ~P~LXCATION, BY: DEAN 4737 ZGI,A.ND V~gW DRXV~ Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the history of this property. On August 8, 1978, Resolution 78-372 was approved by the City Council approving a Maintenance Permit renewable up to 3 years for the subject property. This permit included the exist- ing boathouse, stairway and patio. The following work has since been completed on the subject property, without permit approval: the boathouse was resided and re-roofed, a new deck was constructed, and additional retaining walls were constructed. The applicant is seeking approval of an after-the-fact Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow these improvements to remain. Staff recommended the following: Renewing the Maintenance Permit for the boathouse, stairway, and patio for up to three years, upon the condition that the use of the boathouse is restored to its original use as a boathouse; the current use of semi-habitable space is not allowed. This permit allows these structures to remain un- til three years of the date of City Council approval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be re¥iewed again. During this three year period, if the owner wishes to improve these structures, a separate Maintenance Permit will be required. The new deck must be removed from City property within 30 days of City Council approval. Mr. Dean Menus requested that the deck and all other improvements be allowed to remain. He explained that the improvements were done due to the rain storm of 1987 which caused erosion. He as- sumed that most of the boathouse was on his property and was un- clear as to where the property line was. The boat house was in terrible disrepair with broken screens and rotting wood. The boat house is not habitable as it does not have inside plumbing, but it does have electricity, however, Menus admitted that he slept in the boat house for about 1-1/2 months this last summer. He stated their was evidence of a deck existing on the property before as there were posts and stringers in the ground which looked like a support structure for a deck. The hillside was a dump with car parts, cans and chains. Me emphasized that the area looks much better now. Fackler explained how this encroachment came to the attention of the Parks Department, which was from another individual who was denied an application for a deck on the commons in front of his house. He also reviewed other similar cases involving deck encroachments onto public lands in which the encroachments were required to be removed, such as the driveway on Lagoon Park. Fackler emphasized that a precedent has been set. Dean Menus commented that he feels these cases should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Mark Menus questioned why the other applica- tions have been denied. Fackler summarized that public lands are to be protected for the use of the general public. Mark Hanus questioned why this land needs to be protected, as it is useable only by the abutting owners due to inaccessibility. ,/ Casey referred to a letter written by the City Attorney dated January 1976 which states, "we as city officials are trustees for all the public and therefore private utilization of public lands shall be discouraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity.. Casey also referenced the DNR's Shorline Management Plan which the intent is for the public to benefit from protecting the shoreline frei excessive development relating to aesthetics. Casey commented that some people like to view natural shoreline versus excessive buildings and decks close to the shoreline. Mr. Indritz emphasized the inaccessibility to the subject commons property by the general public. Carols Munson, next door neigh- bor to Dean Hanus, questioned why we should protect property for the public which cannot be used by public? Resolution 77-130, 77-131, and 77-132 adopting the flow chart and Implementing the processing of maintenance permits for construc- tion on commons was reviewed. Dean Hanus emphasized that he only re-built the deck as there was evidence of one their before. Fackler commented that their is a difference between a deck and a patio, as a "Patio" was approved in 1978. Byrnes stated that since this property is not accessible to the general public, then why should the abutting owner not be allowed to use it. Munson read a letter to the Commission which she received from the Dock Inspector relating to the maintenance of weeds surround- ing her dock side. She stated that if a poll was taken of owners abutting commons, we would probably find that few of them believe the City of Mound maintains their property. Fackler commented that a great amount of money has been spent on improving the commons by dredging, riprapping and tree removals. If an abutting owner of commons property has a concern about ero- sion and feels riprap is needed, or there ts some other problem, the City will address the problem. There was some discussion by the Co--lesion about reviewing the maintenance permit policies and procedures. Asleson commented that an after-the-fact permit of new construction is difficult to evaluate. He suggested that if the Commission is interested in making a wholesale revision of the past policy, maybe the request should be tabled. Ahrens commented that she ts not sure all com- mons should be treated the same. MOTION made by Ahrons, seconded by Byrnes to table the request until the Commission can re-examine the policy end procedures of processing maintenance permits. tion to table failed 4 to 3. Those in favor were= Ah- rems, Byrnes, and Schmidt. Those opposed were= Casey, Asleson, Andersen and Bailey. NOTION made by Casey, seconded by Bailey to recommend approval of staff,s recommendation. Casey referred to the City Attorney's letter again, and stated that he does not see anything in the law or facts to change what was written In 1976. He feels the Commission should look at "what is a public use." Allowing the extension of private property onto public lands would be setting a bad precedent. Ahrens referred to the Attorney's letter dated 1975, which states, "The Planning Commission, Park Commission, Council and citizens determine the desired use for commons." Ahrens com- mented that the people on these conissions and the council are all different now from who was there in 1975, and what about the citizens? She believes the policy needs to be looked at. As- leben commented that this land will always be public land, the voice of the citizens should be heard. Chair Asleson called for the question: NOTION failed 3 to 4. Those im favor were Casey, Anlslon, end Bailey. Those opposed vere~ Solmidt, Ahrena. Byrmos~ &ud ]~ndorsen. This case will be heard by the City Council on Decenber 10, 1..~. RECEIVED sLAND V~EW DRIX/E, NOV 13 1991 ~ bi ~ S.U°~° ~c~Nj~ I : CIT ' )f ,\ IO['XI) DATE: TO: FROM: ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Noven~er 14, 1991 Park Con~aission Meeting Park Co~nission and Applicant dim Fackler, Park Director 4737 Island View Drive (Lot 7,~ Block 7, Devon) Dean Hanus Devon #42351 C - non-traversible Construction on Public Lands (after-the-fact) Permit Application BACKGROUND On August 8, 1978, Resolution 78-372 was approved by the City Council approv- ing a Maintenance Permit renewable up to 3 years For the subject property. This permit included the existing boathouse, stairway and patio. Any repair, in~rovements or changes to this public land or the existing structures must cc~nply with City Code Section 320:00, lmproven~nts to Public Lands. The Following work has since been con~oleted on the subject property, without permit approval: the boathouse was resided and re-roofed, a new deck was con- structed, and additional retaining wails were constructed. The applicant is seeking approval of an after-the-Fact Construction on Public Lands permit to allow these improvements to remain. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends renewing the Maintenance Permit For the boathouse, stairway, and patio For up to three years, upon the condition that the use of the boathouse ts restored to its original use as a boathouse; the current use of habitable space is not allowed. This permit allows these structures to remain until three years of the date of City Council approval, at which time the Maintenance Permit will be required to be reviewed again. During this three year period, tf the owner wishes to improve these structures, a separate Maintenance Permit will be required. 0 The new deck must be ren~)ved From City property within 30 days of City Council approval. August 8, 1978 Councilmember Wlthhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION 78-372 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MAINTENANCE PERMITS AS SUBMITTED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR AND REVIEWED BY THE PARK COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Dock Inspector has submitted maintenance permit requests for different types of structures and buildings on the commons, and WHEREAS, the Park Commission has made recommendation with regard to repair, maintenance and the removal of certain structures, and WHEREAS, an itemized listing of structures or buildings, street location and types of action recommended can be found in the Mound Advisory Park Commission minutes of 7-27-78. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Counc|l does hereby authorize and direct the approval and issuance, of maintenance permits as submitted by the Dock In- spector and reviewed by the Park Commission. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councllperson Fenstad, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and Wlthhart, the follow- lng voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. ~ayor ~ Atl~st: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota August 3, 1978 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78-255 FROM: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Commons Maintenance Permits Attached is a list of maintenance permits on Cocoons recommended by the Park Commission. As you will note, some of the recommendations have stipulations. Suggested resolution: "Maintenance Permit Applicatiorslisted below are approved with stipulations as noted". (The additional comments on the Park list would be listed as stipulations.) Minutes of MOUND ADVISORY PARK July 27, 1978 PREG~;T: Chairman Hal Larson, Pat Shay, Toni Case, Cathy Bailey, Jon Lynott, Dock Insp. Don Rother, Sec. Karene Uhe This ~eeting was a continuation of the 7/20/78 meeting. COi'~.'iONS MAiNTE?I'ANCE Address on Is].and View Dr. Encroacb~ment on Co~'~ons Followed thru to flow chart # Retainin$ wall 16 Iron Post 16A Boat wench 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16~ Playhouse 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Light post 16A Additional Com~ents Chain on commons to'be.removed. '. · .V ' '~ ... ~'! ' ,,, ~ ." .'. Needs railing~ on both sides .'.'i~ - To be painted earthl;one color, Needs railings on both si'des. Storage rack Flower box Lamp post Concrete walkway Sidewalk Stair~vay S tai r~'my Retainin§ wall · S tairway (No permit ,.vas requested, however a shed does exist on commons and should be removed.)' " 16B Permit for up to 60 daYs only. 16B ..... ~ 16A - ':'-'-"~ ~:';:;-~'- ' .~ .' .x;,-~, ,: ~.~.~.- 1 6A . . ..:.~ .~ _:.:;~{.~ 16A Needs railings 0n both . ~ -. ~....-: ~.7.~, 16 - 16A Needs r~lings on b~th sides. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides. .- Retaining wall 16 all the way to the bottom. Structure 16A To be painted earthtone color. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides.. Guest house ~ ~ '-. Page 2 Park Minutes 7/27/78 Deck 16A Pumphouse Stair~ay Playhouse 16A Boathouse 16A Stairway Retaining wall To be painted earthtone color. Needs railings on both sides. To be painted earthtone color. Boathouse 16A To be painted earthtone color,· To be painted earthtone color. To be painted earthto,ne color. Needs railings on beta sides. Stair~vay Patio 4743 ~763 4815 .4.849 Stairway 16A Stairt~ay 16A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway ~6A Stairway 16A Boathouse 16A Retaining wall Needs railings on both sides. · ..- . ..!~..;.,,.-. Needs railings on both.sides. "'..' '.. Needs railings on both sideS. ~'." · * :.(-'; .-.. ' ' "~ Needs railings on both sides. Needs railings on both sides and' break to allow passage through° To be painted earthtone color. Wall is in non-repairable conditio Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Walk 16A Retaining wall 16 Needs railings on lower part on' ~ both sides. . ..~." .~ . · .~-..~.,.,'.., Needs railings on both sides. ..- .~.~ :-.-...~ ~?.~ ~. . ~ , ~-.. , ,.:~,~.,.~-~,~.....,,,-::- - - ' ~'.'. · .... ,. '-ra~ .~*~.~- -:'- ~---. _ -.".~/v,- . (~o permit request has been received. Recommend act£on?'''i:''~ by City Council to enforce Ordinance.) Fish house Remove from commons. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides and repair work. Retaining wall 16 Needs repair work done. (General clean-up is recommended as soon as possible.) Page 3 Park Minutes ~877 Stairway 16A Shed 16A ?o be painted an earthtone cOlor. ~ Stairs'/ay ~ Stairway 16A ~471 ? Stairway 16A ~ Stair~vay 16A Retaining ~';al 1 16 ~4925 Stairway 16A Shed To be painted an e-~thtone color.' Remove from commons. "' ~ Stair~ay 16A ~ Stair~ay 4945 Stairway 16A Boathous~ 16A 4949 Fence 16B ~957 Flag pole 16A Needs railings on both sides. Needs railings on both sides~ Needs railings on both si~es. Permit for up to one year only, *'Larson moved that the above list be recommended to the City Council as listed for their action on the Maintenance Permits from Devon Cordons. Shay seconded and vote was unanimous. Chart Action Grant per,it up to 5 yrs. and renewable. Renewable up to 3 yrs. contingent upon the City's use plan. owners may zake application for maintenance permits, Establishing maintenance permits for structures on up to 3 yrs. non-remediable. Permit to be checked Seperate legal reviews. New public lands annually. CITY OF MOUNDt 5341MAYWOOD ROADt MOUNDt. MN 55364 472-1!55 Check One CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATIO~I PUi)l_IC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION CONTINUING THE PRESENT USE OF A STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS OR COMMONS NAME OF COMMONS: ADDITION: LOT: DAY PHONE DOCKS I TE #: BLOCK: .7 DESCRIBE REQUEST: REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEHENT TREE TRIHHING UNDER-BRUSH TRIHMING ~ CHENICAL TREATHENT OF VEGETAT loft APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING: One site plan drawn to scale showing dimensions and location of the ex- Isting or proposed structure/Improvement. Type of chemical end method to be used. Name, address, and phone number of contractor performing services. One set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to Indicate the nature and extent of the structure or Improvement. Photographs of the existing structure in need of repair, or of the aF- Fected area, S I gna-tut· of App I I cant Dated Mr. Jim Fackler PARKS DIRECTOR 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 October 28, 1991 RECEIVED OCT 3 1 1991 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dear Mr. Fackler, Please find enclosed the documents you requested on October 21, 1991. I am mailing these to comply with the November 1st deadline that you require, but the official copies of the survey may take a couple days lcnger to receive. The survey is scheduled for October 29. It always takes several more days to complete the drawings and mail to me. I will submit 2 copies to you the same day I receive them. (I would expect this to be very close to November 1). WORK COMPLETED * Boathouse was re-sided and new screens installed(1987) * Boathouse was re-roofed (1987) * Several sections of retaining walls were installed (1987,1988) * Boathouse deck was rebuilt (1991) The survey should now be the only missing item. Thank you for your~ttention. Dean Hanus I lq , I 12' t. October 21, 1991 ()f N I()UNI) Mr. Dean Hanus 4737 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: Construction on Public Lands Dear Mr. Hanus: This letter is notification to you that your violations to City Code Section 330 relating to construction on public lands will be reviewed by the Parks and Open Space Commission at their regular meeting on November 14, 1991. Your cooperation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. A letter from Building Official, Jon Sutherland, dated August 20, 1991 was mailed to you requesting that the appropriate application to allow construction and maintenance of structures on public land be submitted to our office. Once again, we are requesting that this application be submitted, a form is enclosed. The following information is required to be submitted with the application: A survey/site plan as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. A complete list of the work completed and proposed on public lands. Plans/drawings as required on the enclosed "green" information sheet. This information must be submitted by November 1, 1991. If you have any questions, or need assistance with preparing for your application, please contact Jon Sutherland, Peggy James, or myself. Sincerely, ~/ kl Parks Director pJ Enclosures cc: Jori Sutherland, Building Official Ed Shukle, City Manager printed on recycled paper iNE'TONKA 119~1 ..... GOVT LOT I ..... 160~, 8O ~ , Wl~ ~ ~:OvER RD 4737 Island View Dri Dean Hanus 9-24-85 E1 DR Devon 37870 Lot 7 Block 7 30-117-23 22 0055 Survey no R-2 314 October'22, 1991 RESOLUTION #91-158 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR THE PORTION OE LOT 29, THAT IS MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OE MOUND, TO ALLOW THE EXISTING PRIVATELY OWNED DECK ENCROACHMENT FROfl THE PROPERTY AT 4458 DENBIGH ROAD, TO REMAIN UNTIL THE FOURTH TUESOAY OF OCTOBER 1993, WHEN THIS PERMIT EXPIRES AND ALL ENCROACHING STRUCTURES MUST BE REMOVED FROM LOT 29 WHEREAS, Sandra Konnad has applied For a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow an existing deck structure to remain on public lands known as Lot 29 whtch Is abutting the property at 4458 Denbigh Road, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council ap- proval by a Four-Fifths vote For Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, andl WHEREAS, the subject deck was constructed wlt~ut a building permit, however, an after-the-Fact permit was obtained on February 26, 1988, andl WHEREAS, the deck was constructed under the assumption that it was located on private property, and; WHEREAS, according to a Certified Survey dated September 22, 1986, by Demars-Gabrlel Land Surveyors, the subject deck encroaches onto Lot 29, Block 24, Seton, which Is owned by the State of Minnesota and maintained by the City through a Park Easement, and; WHEREAS, the Parks and Open Space Commission reviewed this request on October i0, 1991, and; NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to grant a Temporary Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the existing privately owned deck encroachment From the property at 4458 Denblgh Road, legally described as "Lot 3 and the East 10' of Lot 4, Block !, Avalon and that part of vacated Stratford Road lying between the north- erly extension of the east and west line of said lot 3," to remain on that portion of Lot 29, Block 24, Seton, which I$ maintained by the City of Mound. The existing privately owned deck encroachment may remain until the Fourth Tuesday of October 1993, at which time this permit expires and all encroaching structures must be removed From Lot 315 October 22, X99t The foregoing resolution was moved Dy Mayor Johnson and Seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councllmembers voted In the affirmative: Johnson, Jensen, Jessen, Ahrens and Smith The following Counclimembers voted In the negative: None. ~~ Attest: City Clerk October 22, 1991 1 90 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL- OCTOBER 22, 1991 1.19 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE USE OF AN EXISTING DgCK STRUCTURE ON PUBL~ SANDRA KONN~n~ qq58 DENBIGH ROA~ City Manager Ed Shukle stated the applicant is requesting approval to allow her deck to remain on public property which was constructed about 7 years ago under the assumption that it was private property. Sandra Konnad was present and discussed this with the Council. After much discussion, Mayor Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~91-158 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR THE PORTION OF LOT 29, THAT IS NAINTAXNED BY THE CITY OF. NOUND, TO ALLOt/ THE EXISTING PRIVATELY Oi~NED DECK ENCROACHNENT FROM THE PROPERTY AT ~lq§8 DENBIGH ROAD, TO REMAIN UNTIL THE FOURTH TUESDAY OF OCTOBER 1993, WHEN THIS PERNIT EXPIRES AND ALL ENCROACHING STRUCTURES MUST BE REMOVED FROM LOT 29. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF · MEETING OF THE MOUND ~DVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 1991 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE USE OF ~N EXISTIN~ DECK STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC I.~d~DSI SANDI~A KONNADf 4458 DENBIGH RO~D. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed his recommendation that the portion of the deck currently encroaching on public land be removed. In addition the deck is required by the Zoning Code to be setback 2 feet from the rear property line, therefore, it was also recommended that the existing deck be modified to meet the 2 foot rear yard setback as required in Zoning Code Section 23.40s(3). Fackler explained to the Commission that a precedent has been set as other similar deck structures have been required to be removed from public property in the past. This is a flat area which is useable without the deck. It was noted that the property appears private with the deck on it. Ms. Kenned questioned if the city would restore the grade if the deck is required to be removed. Fackler replied that in the past it has been the owners responsibility to restore the property. Ahrens questioned if a permit was issued for the deck. Kenned confirmed that a permit was issued, however, only after the deck was constructed without first obtaining a permit. The secretary noted that a survey was not attached to the deck permit in the file. Casey commented that it is important to look at precedence, even though an after-the-fact permit may have been obtained, and other uses for this property may be available if the deck is not there. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Bailey, to recommend approval of staff's recommendation that the deck bo removed and required setbacks be maintained, including the condition that the land be restored by the owner within 30 days of City Council approval. The vote tied. Motion failed with 4 in favor (Asleson, Casey, Skoglund, and Bailey), and 4 opposed (Byrnes, &hrens, Eischeid, and ltmdersen). This request will be reviewed by the City Council on October 22, 1991. CIT ()f ,\ I()I 'NI) DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJ: Park and Open Space Commission Agenda of October 10, 1991 Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant Jim Fackler, Parks Directo~ Application to Continue Use of Improvement on Public Land at 4458 Denbigh Road, Sandra Konnad The applicant is requesting approval to allow her deck to remain on public property which was constructed approximately seven years ago under the assump- tion that it was private property. According to the applicants survey, approximately 10 feet of the existing deck is on public property. Staff recommends that the portion of the deck currently encroaching on public land be removed. In addition the deck is required by the Zoning Code to be setback 2 feet from the rear property line, therefore, staff also recommends that the existing deck be modified to meet the 2 foot rear yard setback as required in Zoning Code Section 23.408 (3). JF:pj printed on recycled paper CiTY OF MOUNDt 5341 MAYWOOD ROADt MOUND~ MN 55364 472-1155 Check One I~-'~7~.I CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION ' ' PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION , CONTINUING THE PRESENT USE OF A STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS OR COMMONS NAME OF COMMONS: ADDITION: DAY DOCKS DESCRIBE REQUEST: REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT m REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION OR IMPROVEMENT TREE TRIMMING UNDER-BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION APPLICA~ MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING' Isling or pr~sed s~ruc~ure/l~rov~n~, Type oF chemical and method to be used. Name, address, and phone number of contractor performing services. One set oF plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and extent of the structure or Improvement. Photographs of the existing structure in need of repair, or of the af- fected area. Si gnature ot: AI>P I I cant Dated 20~ August 13, 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 91-109 A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF PRIVATE ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR PROPERTY AT 6165 SINCLAIR ROAD W~EREAS, in 1910 Lagoon Park was dedicated to the City of Mound when the Highlands subdivision was platted and approved, and WHEREAS, in 1968 a double bungalow was constructed at 6165 Sinclair Road adjacent to Lagoon Park, and in 1972 a new detached garage was constructed, but City files do not record the size of this approval, and WHEREAS, since the date of construction, there have been various disputes between the owner of the property at 6165 Sinclair Road and the abutting property owners on both sides of the property being the private lands on Sinclair Road and the City owned property referred to as Lagoon Park, and WHEREAS, the property owners at 6165 Sinclair Road have over the years suggested property exchanges or have requested the City vacate City park property or they have requested being allowed to purchase a portion of Lagoon Park. A title review was conducted in 1982 and an opinion rendered by the City Attorney's office that since this was a dedicated park, the City~- did not own the fee title and the likelihood of obtaining a marketable title by deed would be practically hopeless since vacation of the park would cause the lands to revert to the heirs of the dedicators who gave the park to the City in 1910, and WHEREAS, Ned and Karen Podany currently own and reside at 6165 Sinclair Road and obtained a permit to construct a new additional 24 x 25 detached garage on said property and delivered a survey and site plan to the City, but unfortunately when the garage was constructed it was not built in accordance with the survey and site plan as submitted, and WHEREAS, an abutting neighbor complained that the garage owned by Mr. and Mrs. Podany encroached onto their property and the Podanys applied in 1986 to the City Council for a variance to move the encroaching garage onto their lot line with zero setback to the Hoag property, and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1986, the Mound Planning Commission, an advisory board, recommended to the City Council approval of a two-foot side yard setback variance (the ordinance required four feet of setback) and the Planning Commission further recommended that the variance be subject to the following conditions: Roof line was to be separated between the two structures; Installation of a one hour exterior fire rated wall; and Installation of rain gutters to divert water away from the property line; and 2O5 August 13, 1991 WHEREAS, on September 16, 1986, the Mound City Council considered the application for a variance and the recommendations of the advisory Planning Commission and adopted Resolution 86-110 (Exhibit A), which document is attached to this resolution and made a part hereof as fully as if set forth in its entirety in this Resolution of Denial, and WHEREAS, the City Council in said Resolution specifically required that the driveway area to be used for this property be confined to the Podany property and that they not use park property as a part of their driveway and further ordered that the gravel which had been put on park property for the purpose of using the park as a driveway be removed, and the City Council also deleted the Planning Commission recommendation as to roof line separation, and WHEREAS, based upon the authorization of the variance granted in Resolution 86-110, the Podanys did move the garage off the Hoag property onto their own property but instead of locating the structure two feet from the Hoag property line, they moved one corner 2'4" from the property line and the other garage corner was moved 6 feet from the property line towards Lagoon Park which narrowed the driveway area by four feet, and WHEREAS, the location of the structure as moved by the Podanys left them 17 feet between the garage and the City-owned Lagoon Park and contrary to Resolution 86-110 they have installed bituminous surface where there used to be gravel on the City park so they now encroach 10'9" into Lagoon Park, and WHEREAS, when this was discovered, the City Park Director and the City Building Official recommended to the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission that the Podanys utilize one of the following options: Remove the violation and restore the area to park land as approved by the City Park Director, or Complete a permit application under Section 320:00 of the Mound City Council to allow them to use public lands for private purposes under a separate maintenance permit; and WHEREAS, Podanys did file such an application and the matter was considered by the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission on June 13, 1991, and July 11, 1991, and the minutes of said meetings set forth the discussions of the Commission indicating that the City in requiring encroachments to be removed from public land is not unique to this property and further found that when the City Council authorized the variance for the location of the garage, it was to utilize the maximum amount of the Podany property for a driveway and to provide an adequate turn-around area, and the Commission further found that variance resolution 86-110 was approved with the specific restriction that: "The driveway area be confined to Podany's building and they not use park property as part of their driveway and the gravel on the park property be removed." 206 Ausust 13, 1991 and WHEREAS, on July 11, 1991, the Park Advisory Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the staff's recommendations that required the encroachment be removed within ten days of City Council action and further that a timber retaining wall be installed by the City to define property boundaries, and WHEREAS, on Jul 23, 1991, this matter was Presented to the City Council and Mr. and Mrs~ Podany appeared and requested the City Council approve their permit request to use public lands for private purposes, and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all of the materials which had been presented to them showing the history of the property and the request of Mr. and Mrs. Podany and heard all the evidence presented by the Podanys and then directed the City staff to prepare a resolution of denial; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The findings set forth herein are a determinati .. facts as determined by this Council after a pa-~ ~^--~--,- ~of the review and the application for the special permit is hereby denied based on those facts. 2. In authorizing a variance by Resolution 86-110 on September 16, 1986, the City Council specifically authorized the property owner to use a minimum set back of 2 feet from their property line and to remove the encroachment from the Hoar property. The variance specifically indicated in paragraph (1) that the driveway area be confined to the Podany property and they not use park Property as part of their driveway and further that they remove gravel which had been placed on the park property. 3. Contrary to the approval of the City Council, the Podanys moved the garage and did not utilize the lands or the area set forth in their site plan which resulted in their garage being located six feet from their property line rather than two feet and minimizes their driveway width. They further have specifically ignored the Resolution which moving the garage and have extended the driveway further onto park approved property and instead of removing the gravel have put bituminous over this area, all in direct conflict with their approved variance and the specific restrictions imposed in 1986 by the Park Commission and the City Council. 4. The City Council has considered the arguments presented by Mr. and Mrs. Podany which are in part that certain public officials orally told them they could use and make improvements on park property. There is no recorded documentation of these statements and the City Council further believes it is beyond the authority of any staff member to authorize private persons to use public land to the detriment of the public welfare. 5. The Podanys further argue that their driveway is limited and that requiring them to remove their driveway from public land would devalue their property. This argument is inconsistent with the right of the public to use its land without encroachments from private property 207 August 13, 1991 owners. The Podanys are further concerned about the appearance of the park land and this is certainly a consideration that the Park Department should review since it is not the desire of this Council to have park property depreciate the value of anyone's property. 6. There are no unique circumstances or conditions affecting this property which would justify the utilization of public park lands for the exclusive use of private owners, and nothing that has been decided by the City staff, the Park and Open Space Commission, or the City Council deprives the property owners from the reasonable use of their land. 7. The granting of this special permit would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the Council in that it would reduce the park land area and further would establish a precedent that people abutting public parks would have special privileges allowing them to use public lands for their private purposes. The City Council believes this is contrary to the general welfare of all residents of the City. The Council further finds that if general standards or requirements are waived or permitted for one property owner, other property owners will expect the same right and will argue to this Council.that if they do not get the right to use park lands, their constitutional rights will be affected by failure to apply the equal protection rules for all citizens. 8. The City Council further recommends that the property owner consider relocating their garage to within two feet of their property line in accordance with the variance granted in 1986, and such relocation would provide a driveway width of approximately 21 feet which is sufficient to service these garages. The foregoit,s ~=~uiu~io, was moved by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Ahrens. Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk LAW Olrlr;CE:$ WURST, PEARSON, I-ARSON, UNDERWOOD & IV~ERTZ liDO FIRST BANI< I~LACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $5402 July 31, 1991 R£C'D AUG 1. 1991 Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Jr. Re: Podany v. City of Mound 6165 Sinclair Road Dear Ed: At the Council meeting on July 23, the Podanys appeared and requested a special permit to use public lands for private purposes. The City Council after extended discussion determined that the 1986 resolution clearly pointed out that they were not to use the park. The Council felt the Podanys had acted contrary to the express conditions of the earlier approval. As the Podanys left the room, they indicated that it was their intention to sue the City. I have received a call from an attorney, Paul Skjervold, and we have discussed the matter briefly. I have also received a call from Mr. Podany who basically reiterated much of what was said at the Council meeting. I have indicated to him that his discussions have to be with the City Council and not with the City staff members. The Council directed me to prepare a resolution of denial, and I am enclosing herewith a four page resolution making findings and denying the permit request and setting forth reasons. This document is more detailed than most of our resolutions, but I have tried to incorporate the materials that are in the staff report, and if the matter is going to be reviewed by a court, we certainly want them to know that the Council gave this very careful consideration. If there is a court action, the resolution will be the basic outline of the City's position to support the denial, and therefore I wanted it to be complete. I would strongly recommend that the City Council review the resolution carefully and add to or delete from the resolution pursuant to their wishes, since the staff can only try to record on paper what they believe the concensus of the Council is in going forward with a denial. WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ If you or any Councilmember has questions concerning this document, please do not hesitate to call. CAP:ih Enclosure Sincerely, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE NOUNDADVXSORY PARK & OPEN SPACE COMHISSXON JULY 11; 1991 CONTINUED DI$¢US$ION~ ~N~ROA~HMENT ONTO LAGOON PARK BY NED PODANY, 6165 8~NCLAIR RO~D Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the revised history of this issue as submitted to the Commissioners. Some specific items noted were: 1) Mr. and Mrs. Podany submitted an application to alter public lands as previously suggested by the Building Official. However, Mr. and Mrs. Podany were unable to attend this meeting. 2) Requiring encroachments to be removed from public land is not unique, in fact, in 1973/74 a court order was obtained to remove an encroaching fence and shed from Lagoon Park. These encroachments were from 3185 Priest Lane. In regards to the turn-around access into the garages, this was addressed by the Planning Commission, which is why a 2 foot variance was granted, to allow adequate turn-around room. 4) S) Variance Resolution No. 86-110 was approved upon certain conditions, one of those conditions being: "1. The driveway area be confined to Mr. Podany's property and he not use the park property as part of .his driveway and the gravel on the park property be removed.. Mr. Podany expressed an interest in purchasing a portion of the park property, however, this has already been proven to be "practically hopeless" by Tom Underwood,s opinion. An application to vacate a portion of the park was also applied for in January 1984 which was denied by the City Council be- cause "the park is a public trust and it is not in the public interest to vacate. Also it would set a precedence if the park were vacated.. Fackler recommended that the encroachment of the asphalt driveway as shown on the survey be removed within ten (10) days of City Council approval, and that a timber wall be installed to redefine the property boundaries. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by 8ohmidt to recommend approval of staff,s recommendation to require that tho onoroaclunont bo removed within ton days of City Council approval and that m timber wall bo installed to redefine propertF boundaries. Motion carried unanimously. This issue will bo reviewed by the City Council on July 23, 1991. 5 MI#UTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND AD¥ISOR! PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 13, 1991 ENCROACHMENT ONTO LAGOON pARK. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed a recommendation from the Building Official. The owner of Lots 1 & 2, Block 17, Highlands, 6165 Sinclair Road, Ned and Karen Podany, have installed an as- phalt driveway which encroaches onto City of Mound parks land, Lagoon Park. This encroachment has been confirmed by a survey drafted by McCombs Frank Room, dated 6-5-91. This encroachment is in violation of City Code Section 320 Subd. 1 which requires a Construction on Public Lands Permit and approval by the City Council. Staff recommended one of the two following options: 1) Remove the violation and restore the area as approved by the City Parks Director. 2) Complete the required permit application process and abide by the outcome of the decision of the City Council. Staff also referred to Resolution 186-110 which was issued for Podany's property to approve a variance. One of the conditions of this variance is as follows: "1. The driveway area be con- fined to Mr. Podany's property and he not use the park property as part of his driveway and the gravel on the park property be removed. · Both Mr. Podany and the Parks Director reviewed the history of other encroachments by Mr. Podany onto City proper, ry. Fackler commented that Mr. Podany was well aware of where the property lines are. Mr. Podany stated that some of these encroachments, such as the split rail fence were approved by Fackler. Mr. Podany also stated that the size of their driveway was not in- creased when it was paved, when the driveway was gravel it was also in this location. Mr. Podany stated that there is not enough turn-around room to enter/exit their garage without encroaching onto park property. The Commission questioned why the garage was allowed to be con- structed if proper access was not available. The Commission also questioned the size of the garage and if there was a permit issued for the additional garage space. Also questioned was why did the resolution include the condition relating to the driveway encroachment, what was the intent? MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Skoglund to table this issue until the July Parks Commission Meeting and direct staf£ to investigate the questions relating to inadequate turn-around room, and allow tine for Mr. and Mrs. Podany to apply for a Construction on Public Land permit if he so desires. MOTION carried unanimously. Revised July 11, 1991 ADD-ON: ITEN #9 HISTORY RELATING TO GARAGE CONSTRUCTION AND DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT AT 6165 SINCLAIR ROAD AND LAGOON PARK 1910 2/68 12/72 1973/74 6/82 10/84 1/84 4/85 6/86 8/86 Lagoon Park dedicated to the City of Mound when "Highlands" platted. New construction of house (double bungalow). New detached garage constructed - size not documented, permit #2946. A court order was obtained to remove an encroaching Fence and shed From Lagoon Park by 3185 Priest Lane. Memo to Curt Pearson, City Attorney, from Tom Under- wood, regarding exchange of parkland by City of Mound which states, "It ts apparent From the foregoing cases that the proposed land exchange is doomed unless the city can somehow establish title to the park. . . the liklihood of obtaining marketable title by deed is practically hopeless." Permit #6760 to relocate existing detached garage and construct new additional 24' x 26' detached garage as shown on survey/site plan. (Note: garage was not built in accordance with survey/site plan as submitted.) Request From Mr. PcxJany to vacate a portion of Lagoon Park was denied (see City Council Minutes). City received survey from concerned neighbor (Hoag) tn- Forming us of garage encroachment of I Foot Into their property. Mr. Podany applied for a variance to move encroaching garage to within 0 feet of Hoag's property line. Planning Report frown Building Official states, " The surveyor evidently was not called back to relocate the proper iron monument that was set for Lot 2 and the property m~rker shown at the time of my Inspection was the Iron m~rker 11.2 feet onto Mrs. Hoag's property." HISTORY 6165 SINCLAIR ROAD AND LAGOON PARK PAGE 2 8/11/86 8/25/86 9/]6/86 Variance request tabled by Planning Commission due to lack of quorum. Planning Commission moved approval of a two Foot side yard setback variance, with conditions: ]) The roof line is to be separated between to two structures, 2) Installation of a one hour exterior Fire rated wall, 3) Installation of rain gutters to divert water away From the property line. In addition, Reese made the following comment as to why a two Foot variance should be granted, "Con~nissioner Reese said it would alleviate some of the hardship on width of the driveway between the park land and the detached accessory buildings due to the narrowness of the lot." City Council approved two Foot side yard setback variance with additional conditions: l) that the driveway area be confined to Mr. Poclany's property, that he not use the park property as part of his driveway and the gravel on the park property be removed, and 2) garage to be moved by November ]5, 1986. In addition, condition #1 as recommended by the Planning Commission was deleted so that the roof line of the garages would not have to be separated. There is no permit on File indicating the garage was moved to within 2 Feet of the property line, however the current survey does Indicate that the closest encroaching point of the garage is two Feet From the property line. ('~1~I'~~ ()f N I()L'NI ) STAFF RECOMMENDATION DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 13, 1991 Parks & Open Space Con~nission and Applicant Jim Fackler, Parks Director Encroachment onto Lagoon Park Due to the limited access to Lagoon Park, and that Ned Podany was Fully aware oF the p~rk pro~erty line, tt is recc~nmended the por- tion oF the asphalt driveway that encroaches on the park be removed by Mr. Podany and the City Install a timber wall ap- proximately 8 Inches above grade to denote park limits. 5une 11, 1991 Dear Member of Parks and Open Space Commission: This letter is in response to a notice of violation sent to us by Jim Fackler, Parks Director, ~egarding the recent asphalt drive- way installation at our duplex at 6165 and 6177 Sinclair Road which borders Lagoon Park in Mound. To better understand just a few of the problems we nave encountered since purchasing this property in 1980, I nave included a short synopsis of its history. We apparently now live in a home that for all practical purposes should never have been built due to the oddly shaped lot and adjacent pa~k. Willard Johnson, Building Contractor and member of the Mound Council at that time, applied for and was granted a permit to build here in 1969. Although there was a park adjacent to the property, it was not used because of its very small size and because a large pond blocked access to the lake. In approximately 1986, we gave permission to one Mound Council Member and the then acting Chief of Police to come through our yard to gain access to their boats which they began to dock on the park property. We were hesitant to allow them to do this but were assured that it would never be used by anyone else due to its small size and no legitimate access. Chris Bolles and John Elam, Mound City Officials at that time, indicated we could make any improve- ments we deemed were necessary and nothing was ever mentioned about needing a permit to do so. We were completely unaware of .this requirement. In 1988, with no notification whatsoever, the City started filling in a portion of the pond for a walkway leading to boat dockage, they cut down trees on the s~oreline and added substantial fill to the east of our d~iveway. They added railroad ties to contain this fill and raised the area approximately one foot blocking natural runoff into the pond. There did not seem to be any good reason for doing this except to make access into our garages more difficult for us, give us less privacy through our kitchen window, and to exacerbate the drainage and sinking problems we had with our driveway. We have had at least one or two truckloads of gravel brought in each year in an attempt to solve this problem and finally decided this year that asphalt paving was the only solution. Unfortunately, because of our inability to relate to M~. Fackler and he to us, we contacted the Mound Building Inspector to see if a permit was required and he said there was none. We were June ll, 1991 Page Two under the impression that the property up to the railroad ties could be used for access into our garages as it has been for years. Whether this area is covered with dirt and weeds as Mr. Fackler would prefer, or asphalt, gravel or gold, there is more than sufficient room for a walkway to the lake. We cannot nave our property devalued even further by having this access cut off to us and our tenant by a fence or any other means as threatened by Mr Fackler! · We have undergone constant harrassment at every turn in trying to improve our property and surrounding area. An example of this was when a load of gravel was inadvertently unloaded on a small portion of park property by our driveway in our absence; Mr. Fackler immediately ordered the placement of a "no dumping" sign not 10 feet from our kitchen window. It seems he has undertaken a personal crusade to make our lives in Mound as uncomfortable and unsightly as possible - weeds were knee high on the park property over the Memorial Day weekend, as they have been many times in previous years. Upon our inspection, all other Mound parks were mowed on that holiday weekend. We concur that Lagoon Park is and always will be adjacent to our property and believe most parks play a very important role in our society, a thing of beauty to be enjoyed by all ........ but not at the expense of lakeshore property owners/taxpayers who are unlucky enough to live next door to an unkept one. We are peace loving people who only want to make our home and area a better, more beautiful place to live. A building permit was issued for the placement of our garages and we assumed by that permit, we would always nave adequate means to enter them. If this is denied us and harrassment continues, we will have no recourse but to seek legal action. cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager John Sutherland, Building Official Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector CiTY OF MOUND 5341HAYWOOD ROAD MOUND~ MN 55364 47Z-1155 (7/89) MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR USE OF A 5TRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LANDS NAME OF ~ DESCRIBE REQUEST: (CHECK ONE) DATE: DAY PHONE DOCKSITE #: --- BLOCK: I--7 REPAIR EXISTING STRUCTURE/IMPROVEMENT REQUEST NEW CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVMENT TREE TRIMMING. UNDER-BRUSH TRIMMING CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF VEGETATION Ac; APPLICANT MUST FURNISH 'THE FOLLOWING: One plot plan drawn to scale showing dimensions and location of the existing or proposed structure/improvement. 2. Type of chemical and method to be used. Name, address, and phone number of contractor performing services. One 'set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to Indicate the nature and extent of the struc- ture or Improvement. Photographs of the existing structure in need of repair, or of the affected area. Signature of Applicant Dated IZZZ_ CI'I' ' ()1: ,X l()l',',,'l) May 31, 1991 Mr. Ned Podany 6165 Sinclair Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Podany: It has come to my attention on 5-30-91 that a portion of a new driveway you installed may have been put on Lagoon Park. During my on-site inspection with the City of Mound Building Official, Jon Sutherland, it was determined that, in fact, there has been a substantial encroachment. I have instructed the City Engineer to do a survey to locate all unauthorized work done. This information will be reviewed by the City of Mound Parks and Open Space Commission at their regular meeting on June 13, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. I would suggest that you attend this meeting for your benefit. If you have any questions, please contact me. JF: pj CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jon Sutherland, Building Official Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector MINUTES OF TilEr ADJOURNED MEETING OF' MARCH 15. 1977 et ';:JO P.M. AT TIlE MOUND COUNCIL CHAMBERS J-'r, ~. nt ~., re' hlayur T~n~ L~,vaaeen, C,,.Jn, simon Orval ~enetad. GorOon Sw, R, L,.r~ }',,;ll,,n and B~.n W~thharl CHy Manager Lr~,~rd L. Kupp and ~n(~nrrr 47 DRAI,.M;F ON :.YNWOOD BI.VD. POLICF RESERVE COMMENDATION Lovaamen n~oved and Fenetad seconded i mo~on RESOLUTION 77. 127 RESOLUTION COMMENDING ~[ ~lCE RESERVE FOR SERVLNG THE CITY O~ MO~D The roll call vote wa~ ~m~ouely in ~ APPLICATION FOR LAND FOR WETLANDS PUR{:~Z~SE~ W~thhart moved &rKI reastad secon~led a m~ton RESOL, UTION 71-128 Rr-SOL, UTION AU1'HORIZINO AND APPLICATION eSR CONVEYANCE ~'RO&I THE STATK OF I,OTS I · 22, BL~ Jo The vote wis uf~antrnouily in SPRUCE ROAD - PHILIP WEILAND Phil Weilind appeared and cornjd&l~ed About the 1~8d, the dit~he8 ~ b The Public Workl ~rector 8~ted t~lw~t lo needed in thio are& Jo 8 otorm le~r, that any ~ork cleifltflI ditchel I~ c~vert0 would o~y ~ a ~rqrl.~e' Polston moved and renstad seconded I motion RESOLUTION 77-]Z9 RESO~U~ON DIR[C~NG ~ ~G~R UP DATE ~E SPRUC~ R~D RE~RT AND CI~ CONTRIBUT~G ~ AND WAYS or CORREC~ON The vote was urtanlrnously in favor IL25 COMMONS MAINTENANCE AND PERMITS }Iai Laro,~n. Park Comrn,~mion CKtzrrr~a &~l Alma Greene. former {~rk Commission Cha~r~r'.a~ outlined Ihrir ~Once~ (,~ the Common~ Ma~fl~r~nce r~leo for ei~bileht~ Al..xa~d,,r. Barney 5~enJon and Bernie Brn~. p~,lmh n n~ovrd and Wtthharl seconded i motion RFhC~:,['TION 7--1~0 CIT?'S USE PEak# NEW OWNERS Idly hEARt APPLICA~ FOR ~INT/N~NCE pERMIt. I~A W~thhart ?.~,,,rd ar~l rrnltad et,()ndrd a mutton RESOLUTION 77.1}1 RESOL. I'TION ESTABLISHING IvLAINTENANCE PER.~HTS FOR STRUCTURES ON pL'Bt.lC LANI~5 L'P TO /tlR~E YEAR NON.RENEWABLE TO BE CIIFCKED ANNUALLY . 10B Withhart mosrd ami S~-nsan seconded · m~tlon RESOLUTION ;?-I~Z RESOLUTION TO Al)OPT TI-IE AMENDED FLOW CtCRRT 14MPL, EMENT'iNG TH£ PRO~ES.~X.~G O!r I~AINTE,NANCE P£RblIT$ FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMON8 The vote was unanirnou;ty tn favor NOTE: The 0toff i0 directed to keep the public notified of the prolreo0 on thio item. PARION~ VARLANCi~ moved nad WttJ~ort seconded · m~tiom RESOL, UTION 77-13] llESOL,UTIOel D~ql~NO A PAAICIXG VAfMANC~ roll ir, SANI:B413ll AT 4T~ BI:DIPOllD llOADI DENTING A PAllKl]eO VAB.IANCK FOr M. MURRAY AT ~?lZ SHANNON LANK; OIANTJ3eO A PARJ~NG VAILIANCK TO 3. SM AT ~J~ PH[LPJ ROAD roll ONE vEHICLE The vote w&s unaulmou0ly in favor POLICE VEHICLES Chief Johnson appe&red before the couKtl ·nd reque0ted Eliot oely use police ¢·r be sold; one be kep¢ iror · marked police squad; omi o~e ~l~'rmJ, kahl k kep4 for lnvestti&f%on. lrem~tad moved a~cl Swanson secon~led · motion R~OI-U'r~ON 77-1)4 RESOLUTION A~IIOV'ING SAL.~ OF ONL. Y ONE POLICE YEH/CL.E - ilk 41 K 4 A ~09860 The vote was unanimously in [a~or COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRE:S£NT Barbara Stuth - Get the C~ty map beck on the wall. PROSECUTKNG ATTORNEY Polston moved and Wlthhart seconded · mutton to table the Oubject of the ~roeecutinI Attorney ~nttl Curt Pearson ti prone·t. The vole wa0 ~naMrnouliy tn favor. DUTCH ELM ~SE - ~tceniinI Tree le~ere are for · ltAlt~d t4m~ are oF othe* or ~t~uf Structure~ tho (6) ~hould tho C~t~ ~eny Request up to ~; yrs develo]2 ~ ~r~or~t~oo 3 ~ rer~-~able u~ t~ 1 yr' but ter~uatoo ' ' Res. 77-130 chanfe tale k~: C~'~ ~e ~. new ucc ~r~ 16A August 8, 1978 Coun¢llmeaber Wl thhart moved the f01 lo~vlng resolution, RESOLUTION 78-372 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MAINTENANCE PERHITS AS SUBHITTED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR AND REVIEWED BY THE PARK COHMISSION WHEREAS, the Dock Inspector has submitted maintenance permit requests for different types of structures and buildings on the comn~ns, and WHEREAS, the Park Commission has made recommendation with regard to repair, maintenance and the removal of certain structures, and WHEREAS, an itemized listing of structures or buildlngs, street location and types of action recommended can be found in the Hound Advisory Park Commission minutes of 7-27-78. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby authorize and direct the approval and Issuance, of maintenance permits as submitted by the Dock In- spector and reviewed by the Park Cora~isslon. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilperson Fenstad, and upon vote belng taken thereon, the follo~Ing voted in favor thereof: Fenstad, Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson and ~/ithhart, the follo~- lng voted against the same: none, ~vhereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Hayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. I~ayor ~ At~fst: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND Mound, PtLnnesota August 3, 1978 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78-255 FRO~: SUBJECT: The Honorable Mayor and City Council The City Manager Commons Maintenance Permits Attached is a list of naintenance permits on Comnons reco~nendedby Park Commission. As you will note, some of the reconnendations have stipulations. Suggested resolution: "Maintenance Permit Appllcatiomltstedbelo~are approved with stipulations as noted". (The additional comments on the Park list would be listed as stipulations.) PRES~T: Hinutes Of MOUND ADVISORY PARK CO[~.IS$ION July 27, !978 Lynott, Dock Insp. Don Rother, Sec. Karene Uhe This meeting was a continuation of the 7/20/78 meeting. CO;~o~0NS MAINTE~3ANCE PE~dITS Address on Encroachment Followed thru Island View Dr. on Comaons to flow chart # Chairman Hal Larson, Pat Shay, Toni Case, Cathy Bailey, Jon ~' · '.~ ' ~' ' .'/Y.'. · ~ &.'.. ~. ~. · Addition~ · v --:-~. ?: Comments .:~<... Retaining wall 16 ' "' -" Iron Post 161 Chain on commons to'be-remove~.?~. Boat wench 161 ..:. :.:.~ ~, ..','-~--.~_.. ~:~'~. S tair~ay 16A -' ' -. .............. -, ' '¥"~. ...... .-..... ..:. ~>..- ....,.-. _ ...~,.,~..~ ........ . · .. % ~.~' Stairway 161 Needs r~ll~ on both sides "X:.~-. S~rway 1SA ::. ~ ?'?. .-.'.:.. Playhouse 161 To be ~nted earthtone color. .. Stairway 161 Needs r~tlings on both si~eS. R~t~ng wall 16 . ..:~ - Storage rack 16B Flower box ! 6B Lamp post 16A Concrete walkway 16A Sidewalk 16A Stairway ! 6A Stairway ~ 6A Retaining wall 16 · S tai r way ~ 6A Stairway 16A Retaining wall 16 Structure 16A Stairway ~6A Guest house P.A Permit for up to'60 days O~lyi....~.,, · -.t_-.~. .. · ,.,f~k~-.-~ ..~.: . Needs railings ' ~'- "' ' on ~o~;~ slaes,~ Needs railings on both side~.. ..-i~.. . Needs railings on both sides.-.'.-' ~11 the way to tho ~ be painted oarthtone color°. Needs railings on both sides.' :" .--' Page 2 Park Minutes 7/ ?/78 477! 4849_ 4857 Deck 16A Pumphouse 16A Stair~Tay 16A Playhouse 16A Boathouse 16A Stairway ! 6A Retaining wall 16 Boathouse ~ 6A Stairway 16A Patio 16A Stairway ' ~ 6A Stairway ~ 6A S tai rrlay ~ 6A Retaining wall 16 S~rw~ 16A Stair~ 16A Stairway 16A S tair~ 16A $tair~my ~ 6A Start'ay 16A Boathouse 16A Retaining wall Stairway 16A Stairway 16A Stairway 16A %Yalk 16A Retaining wall 16 (No permit request has been received. To be painted earthtone color. ' Needs railings on both sides. '" To be painted earthtone col0r~ ~=:" To be ~inted earthtone ~o b~ pa~n~od ~ar~h~ona To be painted earthtone color. Needs railings on both side~. Neede railing$ on both ~idea and. break to allow ~ssage though. To be painted earth~ne' color. Wall l~ in non-re~rable conditio Neede railings on lo,er ~t on Needs railings on ~th sides. Recommend action":'-".'.' by City Council to enforce Ordinance.) Fish house Remove from co~mone. Stairway 16A Needs railings on both sides and repair work. Retaining wall ~6 Needs repair work done. (Oeneral clean-up is recon~mended as soon as possible.) Pag. e ~ Park Minutes .4877 S fairway 16A Shed 16A Stairway 4913 S fairway 16A ~_~ S tairway 16 A Stair,'lay 16A Retaining wall 16 S tai rway 16A Shed ~ Stairway 16A 493? Statr~.~ay _4945_ Stairway ! 6A Boathouse ! 6A ~ Fence 16B _4957 Flag pole **Larson moved that the above list be recommended to the City Council as 'listed for their action on the Maintenance Permits from Devon Coamons. Shay seconded and vote was unanimous. : .:".*,.?. To be painted an earth~one color. .' .... To be painted an earthtone color.' z.%.'-: ,~:'- Remove from ce.raDons. ' -', Needs railings on both sides'. Needs rall'lngs on both 8tdeso.. · Needs railings on both ~t~es.-.' Permit for up to one yea~ onlyo ~..: .- . /:~'-., - Grant per, it up to 5 yrs. and renewable. ' '-;.' -;':'-." 16A Renewable up to 3 yrs. contingent upon the City's use plan. 'Ne~'] '~q..'~:': ~.stablishing maintenance permits for structures on public landS' ~'i".?:"':'' l~B ..,owners nay ~ake application for maintenance permits. . ·...~.~_ o Seperate legal review. k2A up to 3 yrs. non-renewable° Permit to be chocked annually. 77 o 13~ 3-15-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 132 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMONS WHEREAS, representative from the Park Comnalssion presented Flow Chart lot. Council approval, and WHEI~EAS~ Council amended 16A and 16B of s.aid Flow Chaxt NOW', THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: Tha~the amended Flow Chart5 implementing t~e processing of L~_!ntenance Permits for construction on t~e Common. b~ adopted. Said amended changes refer to 16A Res. 77-130 and 16B Res. 77-131. Adopted by Council this 15th day of March, 1977. 't ??-151 3- 15-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 131 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDJM~FLOW CHART IMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING OF MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, }MINNE- SOTA: That adoption of tae amended Flow Chart, implementing tAe process:lng of ]~_.~-~_enance Permits for construction on the Common8 be autAorized. Adopted by Council tnie ttSth day of March, 1977. 77- ~,~0 3-15-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77- 130 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULS FOR 1]VIPLEMENTING MAINTENANCE PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS RENEWABI.~ UP TO THREE YEARS CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY'S USE PLAN NEW OWNERS MAy MAKE APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE PERNiITS . 16A BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNE. SOTA: rructures on Public IMndo and renewable up to three ea . · City's Use.-t'lan. Ir rs centtugent upon the New owners may make permits - under 16A application for maintenance Adopted by Council th/s 15th day of Ma~ch, 1977 LAW OFFICES L-'FEV£RE, LEFL£R, HAMILTON AND PEARSON II00 FIRST NATIONAL lANK IUILDIN(~ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA BS4OZ January 14, 1975 ?£L£PHONI: Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Re: Common s Gentlemen: In December I was directed by the City Council to prepare an opinion concerning the encroachment of private improvements on to public commons. The council desired to know if they could commence liti- gation against persons to.remove certain structures or improvements or whether they could avail thenselves of self-help and merely tear dow~ these things and place the materials 'on the property property. We have made an extensive review of council minutes and will give the council an example of what we can find as council action over the last 25 years.- The following is a brief summary of what those minutes and other documents on file in the City reflect. 19~9 - Court order denying a petition to vacate Waurika Commons as useless and that the public easement had been abandoned - petitioner Gerber. 1959 - Island Park. Council directs preparation of dock ordinance. 1960 - Council okayed work on commons as long as it did not'adversely affect public access and convenience. (Allowed to clean up and terrace.) 1960' - Atkin - Council allowed construction of boathouse on commons. 1960 - Powers - Council denied construction of a platform and land- scaping on commons. 1961 - Council approved construction of boardwalk on commons. 1962 - Pierce - Council allowed petitioner to add a room to a guest- house built on commons, Lot 4, Block 7, Devon. LAW Li:FEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Page 2 1963 - Bargman - Council approved building of a boathouse on Lot 22, Block 24, Seton. 1966 - Order of Building Inspector to remove a fence. 1966 - Wychwood - Council allowed patio with the Village retaining the right to remove and to cancel. (Petitioner alleged a mistake was made and improvement was made before discoverina that it was on commons - McGill. ° 1966 - Curt Carlson - Council directed petitioner to remove fence O~ comRlons, 1966 - Fazendin - Council denied extension of patio on commons. 1969 - Kilby allowed to landscape commons. 1974 - Salden allowed to construct stairs on commons. 1974 - Huseman - Council allowed stairs conditioned upon complying with building code and allowing public access at the top and bottom of stairs. Stairs to become city property. GENE RAL The foregoing examples and many others which are'known to the council and staff and which are revealed on the Devons survey indicate the complexity of the problem. Devons Common has been surveyed and there are at least 35 encroachments on the Devons Common by abutting property owners. Over the years a number of areas abutting on Lake Min~etonka in the City of Hound were dedicated as "commons", either for use by the public in general or for the private use of the owners within a given subdivision.. Durin~ the past 70 or 75 years various types of structures have been built on these commons in- cluding boathouses, docks, stairways and retaining walls. Some of these structures were apparently built before any municipal regu- lation existed, and some after. Since approximately 1960, the City has authorized, pursuant to its ordinances, the erection of stair- ways across the commons areas to permit adjacent o%~ers, and the public 'in general to gain access to the commons areas. A property owner has recently erected a retaining wall in the Devons Common which encroaches in the commons some six feet. The structure L. FE. VE. RE..LF_FLE. R. HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Page 3 was erected without a permit, the owner asserting that he was unaware of the application of the ordinance to the proposed struc- ture, that similar retaining.walls are already in place without permits, and that the proposed structure would in fact enhance the safety and utility of the commons area. A criminal complaint has been issued against him, and he entered a guilty plea to con- structing without a building permit. QUESTIONS RAISED The above incident has brought to a head a long-smouldering dis- pute in the City as to the proper regulation of commons areas and the proper course of action for the City to take in dealing with the problem of the long existing encroachments on the various commons. The City Council has asked for my opinion as to the status of these structures, methods of removal, and legislative approaches to the problem. LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED Status of "commons" In law there is no practical difference between the term ~c~mmons" and "park". See Headly v. City of Nort'hfield, 227 Minn. 458, 35 N.W. 2d 606 (1949); 59 Am. Jur. 2d "Parks, Squares etc.", Sec. 1; Minn. Stats. 505.01, and its predecessor statute R.S. 1851, Chapter 31, Sec. 5. Commons may be dedicated to the public either statutorily by dedication on a plat or by common law dedication, i.e., by a defective statutory dedication or by long acquiescence in the public use of the property. Klenk v. Town of Walnut Lake, 51 Minn. 381, 53 N.W. 703 (1892). Effect of Dedication. ¥~atever the mode of dedication of the commons, if it is made for public uses, the municipality be- comes a trustee of the lands in question for the benefit of the taxpayers in general, and its duty is to devote the commons to the purposes intended by the dedicator. Headly v. City of Northfield, supra; Allen v. Village of Savage_, 261 Minn. ~34, 112 N.W. 2d 807 (1961); .City of Winona v. Huff, 11 Minn. 119, 'Gil. 75 (1866). This duty is strictly construed by the courts, as in the Headly case where a proposed use of a public square for a high school athletic field was enjoined, and in a proper case the City may bring an action to prevent improper use of a commons or the maintenance of a nuisance thereon. 59 Am. Jr. 2d, supra, Sec. 54. LAW OF f" lC r $ L~:F'EVERE, LEFLER, HAHILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Page 4 Adverse Possession of Commons Property. Long and continued use of commons property dedicated to public use does not give rise to possible adverse possession or prescriptive use. Minn. Stats. Sec. 541.01. Dozier v. Krmpotich, 227 Minn. 503, 35 N.W.~ 2d, 696 (1949) (unless hostile possession in effect 15 years prior to 1899 when present statute was enacted). Effect of Unequal or Selective Enforcement. In the criminal action on Devon Commons mentioned above, defendant raised the issue that other retaining walls.had been allowed to be built similar to his and that to single him of~t for prosecution denied him equal protection of the laws as.guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Discriminatory enforcement may be unconstitutional in a proper case, but the general rule is that unequal enforcement is not discrimination violative of the 14th Amendment unless it is intentional. 5 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, 3rd Ed., Sec. 19.13; State v. Board of Appeals, 21 Wisc. 2nd 576, 1124 N.W. 2d 809 (1963). As %he Supreme Court said in _Snowden v. Hu~hes, 321 U.S. 1,' 64 S.Ct. 397, 401: "The unlawful administration by state officers of a state statute fair on its face resulting in its unequal applica- tion to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be an element of purposeful d_iscrimination .... but a discriminatory intent is not to be presumed." See also Nick v. State' Hi?hway Commissioner of Wisconsin, 124 N.W. 2d 754; State v. Perry, 269 Minn. 204, 130 N.W. 2d 343 (1964). May the Public Commons be Vacated? Under certain c~rcumstances the District Court or the City may vacate public grounds, public parks or commons, Minn. Stats. 505.14; MSA 412.851; Buck v. Winona, 271 Minn. 145, 135 N.W. 2d 190, but in either case there must be a showing upon evidence and a hearing with notice to the public that the vacation would serve the public interest. I have in- dicated to you before that I believe it would be extremely difficult to show that the public interest is promoted or served by the vacating of lakeshore or parkland abutting on Lake Minne- .tonka, and that I would anticipate litigation by some citizen alleging that these park properties are held in trust and could not be vacated. The question of vacation is also further com- pounded by the dedicatory clauses or methods by which the public's interest has been created. If the commons or parks are improperly vacated and access to the lake or park is cut off~ abutting LAW OF'r lC r. $ LzFEVER[, LF..FLER, HAHILTON AND PEARSON ayor, Council and City Manager ity of Mound Page 5 property owners may have an action against the City. Jur. 2d "Parks, Squares, etc.", Sec. 53. 59 Am. Is the City or are Propert~ Owners Estopped from Enforcin.~ Ordinances or Covenants,,De.al.lng with Come, ons? As to munici- palities the general rule appears to be that a municipal corporation may be estopped from enforcing an ordinance when appropriate circumstances, justice and right so require. 9McQuillan, "Municipal Corporations", 3rd Ed., Sec. 27.56; but mere non-action by municipal officers is not enough to establish an estoppel, and there must have been some positive acts by such officers which have induced the action of the adverse party. McQuillan, supra. Also, where one is aware of the applicable ordinance or makes no attempt to know of it, even the issuance of a permit contrary to the provisions of the ordinance does not create an estoppel. Remedies for Illegal.Encroachments. Where no municipal regu- lations are in effect, citizens interested in a park or commons and entitled to its enjoyment have the right to do that which is necessary to improve the park and make it more suitable for the uses for which it was intended, in the absence of active care by the public authority. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, "Parks, Squares, etc.", Sec. 9. Mound has adopted ordinances and re'gulations and changes or encroachments since the adoption of those regu- lations would not be affected by the aforestated principle. But where the municipality has asserted active care and has enacted regulatory controls it has a fiduciary duty as trustee to protect the park for uses intended and may implement such protective measures by any appropriate means, including inspec- tion to prohibit and abate nuisances and remove encroachments. 59 Am. Jur. 2d, supra, Sec. 54, and me imposition of criminal sanctions for violation of ordinances. Nelson v. DeLong, supra. It should be noted, however, that in the complex setting of the various cases relating to Mound commons, the mere statement of these principles does little to forecast the outcome of indiv- idual lawsuits. The action tb remove these encroack~ents would be a civil action in equity and the City would be asking the court for a mandatory injunction ordering the removal of the encroachments. The City must also continue t° enforce its regu- lations and where encroachments are taking place in violation of our current ordinance, we believe that the owner should be asked to remove the encroachments or criminal action should be LAW OrrlC£$ LrFEVERE. LEFLER, HAIVlILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Page 6 taken if they have violated the ordinance. I have consulted with real estate experts concerning legal action to remove these encroachments. It is our opinion that the City would have to commence an action for a mandatory injunction to remove structures, walls, etc. which are located on commons. Each case would have to stand on its own merits, but we believe that the City would generally prevail in these lawsuits. The question must be ~ns~ered by the council - how much time and money is the City willing to devote to removal of these encroachments? The idea of self-help, (the City goes in and tears down the construction) was examined and is not recommended. We believe the City would face a multitude of litigation over our rights, their rights and alleged damages for property destroyed or removed. SUM~MA RY Based upon the above discussion, the following observations might be made: The various public "commons" in Mound should properly be viewed as public parks and dealt with in precisely the same manner as public parks. The City acts as trustee of these public commons, and is respon- sible to insure that they are properly preserved for the uses for which they were dedicated, whether by statute or common- law dedication. The City, acting pursuant to delegated authority from the State, has ample power to reasonably regulate the use of public commons to insure proper public use and to minimize conflicting private interests. The illegal use of the commons over the years does not, except in the most unusually lengthy case, give rise to adverse possession by property owners. We doubt that very many if any such cases of this nature exist in Mound. Selective enforcement, unless intentionally discriminatory, does not violate the equal protection clause of the Federal Consti- tution; singling out a particular property owner for special treatment, either adverse or favorable, would, however, be constitutionally suspect. The Mound council must constantly keep in mind that the result of any individual lawsuit can not be forecast with reasonable certainty because the facts presented EAW OFF~C£$ L£FEVERE, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager City of Mound Page 7 to the court in each case will determine if there has been intentional discrimination. It is my belief that such dis- crimination does not exist, but I believe that the summary of council actions over the last 15 years would lead someone to indicate that there has not been a great deal of consis- tency by the City in granting or denying permits. ~I am sure that they would make this allegation and would try to impress the court that they were being picked on by the C~ty. The City is not legally prohibited from enforcing its ordinance or regulations as to commons unless it can be shown that in- tentional discrimination is being practiced against that individual. In cases pre-dating 1960 our records are not complete. Since 1960 various councils have either denied or granted special permits to construct various structures or to make improvements on the commons and those situations result in a good fact question for each case. Legal actions to remove encroachments already existing wil~ result in extended litigation and involve many legal issues of a complex nature which will have to be decided on a case to case basis. If the City is to proceed, we would recommend that it do so by commencing an action for a mandatory injuncti6n. ALTERNATE COURSES OF ACTION TO COUNCIL Take position that all encroachments on commons violate the public's right to use public land and commence a mandatory injunction action against all property owners who have en- croached. This will result in a multitude of litigation and involves many, many legal issues not discussed in this opinion. If the City desires to follow this alternate, it must be prepared to expend substantial amounts of time and money. The Planning Commission, Park Commission, Council and citizens determine the desired use for commons, establish goals, standards and regulations for all public commons. The City can then notify all property owners who have encroached that they must apply for a special permit and then the Council can approach each individual problem and either grant or deny the permit and make an order to remove or to comply with the conditions which the Council attachs to each permit. The conditions would then be uniform in design to protect the public's interest. L£FEVERE. LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mayor, Council and City Manager · City of Mound Page 8 3. Adopt or revise present ordinances regarding shoreline use of commons utilizing the following principles: a) Statement of permitted uses on commons. b) Statement of special uses on commons, with standards for granting thereof (hearing, conditions, variances, protection devices, public access, etc.) c) Treatment of existing encroachments or illegal uses as non-conforming with provisions for phasing out (e.g., no expansion, street code enforcement, removal upon certain percentage of destruction, etc.) An amortization clause might be considered, all to implement alternate ~2. 4. The council must then provide administrative, help and money to implement the program of regulating and controlling, both as it relates to present owners and encroachments, construction on commons in the future and as to removal or modifying encroach- ments presently in existence. CONCLUSIONS This opinion, though overly lengthy, merely touches the surface of the problem. The legal complications, with each case and the exact status of each' commons, are staggering. It appears to this . writer that to document the existing encroachments and to ascertain the facts in each case, we must continue to survey each commons. The clear marking of the public land by decorative monuments and a strict and uniform enforcement policy for future use are mandatory. Anyone who assumes that this is a simple problem with a simple, easy answer should be aware that our lawbooks are filled with cases trying to determine individual and public rights. Few of those cases have as complicated a set of facts as exist in Mound. I hope that this opinion will give the council a working tool to move forward with a uniform program for "commons". Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP :ms CLAY'TON L. A. j. OE' N N I ~. JOHN I:. ,JOHN l- Or. AN OAVIO J. 1~Al~/ilrM I~. SAGSTU(:N WIL~IAkl ir. OAYIO J. J&HCl O. LANSON CHAIL[S L· Lilt rVr Nc LAW O~lf lOCI L[.f'L~.R, H^HILTON ^ND PE^RSON I, IAT I 0NAL IA'kK MINN[.APOLI S, MINN[$OTA February ~.0, 1976 T(:L CPkEONC Mr. Alan K. Greene, Chairman Mound Park Commission 5013 Avon Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Maintenance Permits for Structures on Commons Dear Alan: On February 5, 1976 I received your inquiry of January 22, 1976 regarding maintenance permits for structures on commons. You and I had talked on the phone and I understood you were gging to send me a copy but that was not received and I finally got a copy from Len. In the second paragraph you indicate that certain Park Commission minutes were attached, but unfortunately they were not a part of the package. Tn essence the facts are as follows. The City of Mound has for some' time been plagued with old practices and prccedures which either allowed private parties to build on or use commons as if it were private property, or by inaction private parties constructed and utilized commons as if it were their private property. Within the recent past the public and the City Council have been wrestling with this problem and trying to find an equita'~le solution. On March 6, 1975 ordinance number 332 was adopted after considerable study to try to control docks and construction on commons. As a part of that ordinance Section 26.9302 relates to special permits ahd has in effect four various divisions which relate to work on commons. Subdivision one makes it unlawful for construction of any kind on commons unless a public land permit is issued. This section also requires that the applicant provide drawings, speci- fications, proposed costs and purpose for the change. It further requires a survey by a registered land survey and requires that all these documents be provided to the City and kept on file by the City. NO SPECIAL PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS APPROVED BY A LI:FEV£RE, LF..FLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Alan K. Greene Page 2 February 10, 1976 4/5THS VOTE OF ALL TH~ COUNCIL MEMBERS. Subdivision 2 covers in more detail the types of construction, namely, stairways, retain- ing walls, fences, temporary structures, stonework, concrete forming or any other type of construction. This section carries a specifig prohibition against the construction of bo~tbpuses~o=_ ~-~her buildingfon public land, Subdivision three is entitled "Public land maintenance permits" and is to cover "presently con- structed boathouses or other structures on public lands". This requires approval by the City Council and indicates that the council may grant, deny or order any structure to be removed. It further indicates that special permits are required for any main- tenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands, allows the council to impose reasonable conditions and requires those who have encroached on public land t° obtain a permit on or before April 1, 1976. Subdivision five goes to land alteration and requires a permit for changing shoreline drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which results in removal or placement of any fill, or which elimin- ates, adds or develops any access road or lane. It is obvious that the Park Commission and the Council in adopting this ordinance attempted to make provision for any and all changes taking place on commons and intended to categori:e existing encroachments. My response t'o your letter of January 22 should probably begin by my enclosing to you a copy of an opinion that ! rendered to the Council on January 14, 1975. I believe that opinion Went into great detail concerning what had happened in tk~ City and poigted out some of the problems along with suggestions for rectifying those problems. On page five of that opinion you will find that we informed the Council that remedies for illegal encroachment required litigation on the part of the City to have those encroach- ments removed and pointed out that the City cculd adopt the policy that it was going to have all encroachments removed, but then they would have to be willing to expend substantial amounts of time and money for this litigation. We also pointed out that there are so many varied and different fact situations that apply that we could get different rulings from the court on the various cases. On page seven of our opinion we pointed out some courses of action available to the council. I believe that the adoption of the Lr. FF..V£RE, LEFLER, HAHILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Alan ~. Greene Page 3 February :0, 1976 ordinance two months later indicated that the Council decided against a massive effort to remove all encroachments by litir gation. It appears that the recommendations found in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 on pages ? and 8 are in effect the route selected and that this is being implemented at this time. With that opinion as a starting point, I think you will have a good idea of our views of structures on public com~.ons. Therefore, looking to the first page of your letter and your four steps of strategy, I believe that there should be a cardinal principle which is adopted before you get into the four steps. T__hat principle iB essence is that th_e publ_ic lands were de_dica_te~_f~.r_t]~e_p_ublic and that the City is a trustee whose duty it is to devote those l_ands for_the public purposes intended .by the dedlGat~r~ In effect the .private use of public lands.__s.h_.o_u!d .bg_~_~.N.a_g~d and un!e_~_~ as you have pointed out, it is in the public interest, should be considered a "no-no". We also should attempt to remove discretion as much as possible from the procedure., because dis- cretion breeds the various results referred to in my letter of January 14, 1975, which most people look at and say that they think the ~ouncil d. is_cr.iminated by granting ~ermits. to some and de___nzing to othe_rs, t'!e are therefore back to the Easic rule that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law and %:berber applicant~ a~re friends or constituents, .._. t~ov should all be treated the ~am~1:ay. The more discretion we add into the process, the more pressures we put on the administrative staff and the elected officials of {he City. Therefore r.y suggestion is that the Commission start with that basic principle. The four step strategy appears to me to cover the situation. do think that you will %.ant as one of your main goals, to have standards which will get boathouses and living quarters off the commons at the ear-~iest possible date %:ithin the law. As you have pointed out in your letter, the council may very well routinely decide to permit some of these structures, %..'here the persons did obtain permits from the City Council and have made rather sub- stantial investments in reliance on these council decisions. You will therefore want to include for those situations some kind of an amortization schedule. As an example, if all living quarters and boathouses had to be off the cormons no later than 1990 or whatever period is selected as reasonable, the o%mers should be informed of this so that they can in effect amortize this over a period of years and if the property changes hands, the values of those structures on commons will have to sell at a depreciated amount. LI:FEVERE. LF. FLER. HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Alan K. Greene Page 4 February 19, 1976 I would also add a fifth principle and that is that the City Council make a commitment to enforce the principles which are adopted including expending whatever time and money is necessary for administrative and legal assistance to resolve this problem once and for all. In the bottom paragraph you go to the positive-negative position. It appears to me that ali private use of commons ~except those instances where construction is to prevent erosion or to beautify the commons which would accrue to the benefit of ail members of the public then only incidentally benefits the abutting owner, i do not believe that you want to leave the impression that private u~e of the commons is not an encroackment of the public rights ,,nless it directl~ interferes with the public use of the commons. It appears to me that it can be argued. Placing any private improvement on the public land destroys the natural state or the condition selected for that commons by the City who has the right to change it if that is deemed to be in the public interest. ,! think the number of..pe, rmits for new uses for commons by private ~arties should be k..ept to an absolute minimum to avoid the old ~i.--~-.fall__of_dLs_c.r_e_.t_ion which has l~a.~t~3 council for so long. Within those kind£ of principles we are back to improvements such as retaining walls cr iandscapin? ::hich is for the .~ublic use and ! suspect that in some rare cases public stairways to in areas which will allow the public to get to the land can also be helpful. These stairways should be Dubli¢. in meaninq access tO them.~with possibly discreet signs to direct k~.e~&L~_~iiC:to t~m fo: t]~e£r use,._etc, . As ! pointed out in our opinion of January 14, 1975, existing ~tructures per se do not have a right to be on commons and ! would no...t be uncomfortable in arguing that they _should._be_ r.e~.- cause there' is a slig.h.t_ _negative .i~pact. Theoretically we should be. able to argue that any public encroachment is unwarranted under the law and should be removed. My cautionary statements to the City Council go to the various fact situations which require us to find out how these things were built. Permanent structures, boathouses, living quarters, etc. should be removed at the earliest time, possibly based on the facts under which they were constructed. ! believe in most cases the City would be successful except in those areas where the property' owner acted in reliance of the City' s granting permits. LAW Orf,C£~ LgF£VERE. LEFLER. H^HII..TON AND PEARSON Mr. Alan ::.' Greene Page 5 February i0, 1976 The term maintenance permit is not intended to cover painting', nailing, welding, etc. It is intended to say that you may main- tain a structure on the commons under the conditions imposed by the council in the special permit. As an example, a fireplace or barbecue located on commons. One of the conditions might well be that this is for the public use - the public can go there and picnic and use that fireplace or barbecue with the same rights as the property owner who constructed it. I do not see any substantial reasons for issuing an annual permit but it may be that in the terms of the various permits you will want to indicate that'the p~rmit ~s 991Y_ go~_o~ for two or three 'years' a--~'the~-'establish a follow-up system within--~he City admin- istration so that those permits come back to our attention and are examined by the proper City officials. It is also obvious that retaining walls, concrete rock work, etc. should be kept in repair to protect erosion, etc. and it may be that the City will want to take over that maintenance to justify their being on public land and to indicate to the property owner that he has no [ivate rights in the retaining wall and with proper markina the blic will be aware that they can picnic or use lands abov~ the retaining wall as well as below. I therefore doubt whether you ~:ant to chan~e the ordinance to require these annual!v. The ;.pri! 1 date ]s established by the ordinance. There [s nothin~ to prevent the Council from amendinq the ordinance or by resoluticn extending the time because of the need for more administrative work. It does seem to me that your Commission and the various adminis- trative personnel could be moving ahead now by sending notices to all those who have encroached, requiring them to make the application and then those applications could be processed after you have established your policy of implementation as set out in page one of your letter and your flow chart. Reviewing that flow chart, it appears to me that ! would be in agreement with the procedures established for new construct~oh. I have more difficulty with the existing'construction which is found on the lower right hand side of your chart. Maybe ! am reading that wrong, but it seems to me that the question of who benefits by the permit and will it cause a hardship puts you and LI::FEVER£, LEFLER, HAMILTON AND PEARSON Mr. Alan X; Greene Page 6 February 10, 1976 the council back into the position of processing a number of cases with any abutting property owner.agreeing - who does it hit? This means more encroachment on public land and the stew gets thicker. I guess what I am saying is that as far as your flow chart is concerned, unless there is a positive impact, .the major goal of your standards should be to have the existing ~onstruction removed and that seems to be the conclusion that ~ou reach in that you grant a ~emporary public land permit with a removal date included therein. Alan, in summary I think what you and your Commission have done is excellent. I think that you have all been a very' positive force on a very difficult project and I really have no strong disagreement with most of your conclusions or with your flow chart. My major source of input would be that we as City officials are trustees for all the public and therefore private utilization of public land should be discouraged and terminated at the earliest opportunity. Projects with public benefit, or as you state, a positive effect, are not really private because the holding of the shoreline, landscaping, etc. is beneficial and a public improvement and we may not even wish to issue a ~aintenance permit but merely to tell the abutting property owner that these are public improvements on public lands and will be considered as such and that he has neither the right nor the obligation to maintain it in the future. I hope that all of this is in some way helpful to you and I shall be happy to discuss it further if you so desire. Enclosure ¢¢~ Mayor and Councilmen Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager Dedfcattons as Recorded on Plats · ree Points Wawanossa Common (Woodland Point) "and we hereby dedicate to the owners of the lots, as shown on the annexed plat, forever, all the streets or avenues thereon ehown.' Juno 19, 1906 11 ~ ~ec. 13, T.11?, R. 24 Waurika Common For dedzcatlon of this land see wording under Wawanossa Common N. ~ Seo. 13, T. 117, R. 24 PebOle Beach Comaon ~Sh~.dywood Point) "have caused the same to be surveyed and. platted as "Shad.vwood Point' Hennepin Bounty, Hinn., and hereby do donate and dedicate to the p~tblic use forever all the .treets, avenue,boulevard,roads,lanes, drives,path, place, trial, square, common, landi~s and parks as shown on ~e annexed plat. Zn witness whereof ,aid ~eside P~k Ase0o~ation has caused taese pro:o, t~ +. be s~ned by its proper officers and its corpormte ae~ to be here,.., afr..wed thle 8th day of J~ 1921 N ~ Sec. ~, T. 1T.7, R. 2~ $iota Co.men (Dre~ood) ~ "have caused the ~ame to be surveyed and platted as 'Dreamwood· and we hereby dedicate to the owners of tJ~e lots as sho~'n on the annexed plat all the streets or avenues thereon shown. In witness whereof we have here~mto set our h~ds and seals this 2~th day of May 1907 ! hereby certify that this iea correct survey .... ....... there arc no public highways other th.n as shown. Crescent P~rx (Shadywood Point) ~or dedication of land see wording under Pebble ~each Co~mon ~ark in Shad~ood Poin~ " )'Or dedication of this land see wording under Pebble Beach Common Pumbrook Park ( all torrens) S. ~ Sec 1~, T.117, R. Z] _ "have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Pembroke" ond we hereby donate and dedicate to ti'e public use forever, the avenues, Itreets, and alleys as shown on the annexed plat. 23 - ApriI-L~I0 ._Pembroke Park ~Pheipe Island Fark) First Division Mr. and Mrs, Phs. Lye owners and proprietors of the follow~n~ described real o~tate to wit: J~ots five and slx 6action nineteen T, 117 Rance twent~ three ~oet of f. he f~l'th pr~i~ip~ merldia., H~vo cnu~od ~ po~tion of tho ~amo %o Do su~'vo~ed and platted as represented on %~1a pl~,t fo~tho u~es and purposes~ stated In this certificate and not oths~lse and to be kno&'D and des~cnated as "Pholp~ I~iand Park,First Div~s:on.. T]~u ~vg~ues, ntreet, s, a~le%s, parks and wharves shown on sa~d so designated, are no: intended for public uso or dedicated for publle purposes, or to be sub~ec~ %o public cr m~zcip~ control but are xntended for private use and enactment, an~ are and shall remain %he sole ~d exclusive property of arid propr~e:ore their nears ~d a~clcns and be controlled, improved, ~rade&, ~d m~nta~ned ~d recurs:ed b% them for their own benefi% ~d the co.on uae ~ enjo%men~::of %h · owners of esl( io%~, their heirs ~d alaignl, forever. The Highlands --~. ~ Sec. 23, T. 117, R. 2h "have caused the same to be ~urveyed and Platted as "The Highlands" and we her by donate and dedicate to the public use forever, the avenues, streets,pLaces, parks, Drives,Par~a, Channels, ~oons, ~nes, ~d Bo - on the annexed plat. In Withes ~.~.~ ..... ulevards as ShOWn s w.,=.=~ we nave hereunto set o~ h~d8 and thio 15th d~ of December 19~0 (Mr. ~d ~s. Tuller and Mr. ~d Mrs. Becke~a~ and Oscar C, Greene That I Oscar 0. Greene mortget;e~ . of the property deo¢l'~oed in the forec~ing dedication, hereby consent to the dedication to the public use forever of the Avenues,$treets, places,Parks,Drives, parkways, cha~nele, L~goons, Lanes and ~oulevards as shown on the annexed plat ~l ~ess my hand and seal iht ~ 15th da~ of December 1910 Ther. are no public htghwa~,s to be designated on ma~d Ri. at other than aa shown thereon(a~rvez) LWychwood j Sec. T. i17, 24) '---' .......... ' nave caused the s~mo to be surveyed ~nd plntted am "Wychwood" ~nd do hereby donate and dedicate to the public u~e Forever the c,Jupty road aa shown on the annexed pl~t; and do ~lso ~oreby donate and dedicate to the lot owners of said "Wychwood~ tho u,e ~'orever of the lanes, road~ and commons am ml~ewu on ~he ~nuexud pl~t. In w~tnc~m whereof th, ~aid ~edo Park Company haB caused ~eBe presentm to be mk~ned and its cQrpor~t~ ,esl to b, hereunto ~kxod th~ 25th day of ~y 1908 I do hereby certify ..... that tbs out~idm bold, fy lines are correct~ de,ignited on the pla~ ..... that there ~ no public highways to bs de~ignatod on maid plq~ other th~ am shows thereon. (~veyor) Eenmare Common (Seton) (all torreng) N ~ Sec. 19p T.117, R. 2) "has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "$eton" and does hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the streets, avenues rood~, la,:es end common as shown on the annexed plat. I~ w:tness whereof said Tu.xedo Park Company has caused these presents to be signed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed on this 26th day of liowember 1913 ()'cornets: Seton 19 Lagoon dedicated to t~e public) 'Devon Common ~all torrens) "has caused the smne to be surveyed and plotted as 'Devon' and does .h~reby donate and dedicate to the public for the public use forever the roads, lanes, streets and common a~ shown on the annexed plat. In wi tnes.~ whereof sald Tuxedo Park Com. pnay has caused these presents to be signed and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed on tnis 12t~l day 091911. . ~~£ l~. -~ Sec. 30, C.117, It. 23. Brighton Common (Arden) ~All torrens) S. ~ Sec. 2~. T. 117, R. ' nas caused the same to be surveyed end platted as "Arden' and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public uue forever, the streets, avenues, and alleys as shown on said plat. In w~tness whereof the Tuxedo Park Company has caused these presents to be signed and its corporate seal affixed this 13th day of May 1910 Waterbank Common ~ i~akside /ark) ' have caused the same to 0e surveyed and platted and to be ~nown and desl~..nate d sz 'A~keside Park: A.b. Crock.~r's ~'irst Diviaxon, Mound, Mi,,netonka' and we hex'shy donste and dedicate to the l~uo£~c use ~orever ali the roads and avenues and streets hereon shown. An testimony whereof we have hereu~to est ~ur hands and seals this 26 day of llovember i hereby certify that I have · urveyed and platted the lend ...... that the outside bvundary lines are correctly designated on the plat and there a.'e no wet lands or public hgl~ways to be designated on siad plat other than aa shown thereon, (Ai'~e~t Orober,surveyor) RESOLUTION NO. 9~- RESOLUTION APPROVING STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COVER STATE'S SALES TAX APPLICATION ON LOCAL ~OVERNMENT PURCHASES WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature, during its 1992 Legislative Session, approved the application of the State's 6.5% sales tax to local government purchases; and WHEREAS, the sale tax application to local government purchases was passed in lieu of Local Government Aid (LGA) Cuts; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound must cover approximately $12,000 to $15,000 in sales tax within its General Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has proposed some personnel changes within the Police Department and Parks Department to cover this amount being applied due to the sales tax provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the staff recommendation as follows: Retirement of Sergeant Brad Roy, effective July 1, 1992, will realize a savings in the Police Department of $9,000. Retirement of Bob Johnson from the Park Department and not replacing his position will realize savings of $4,000. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk April 23, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: City Manager Mayor city Council Fran Clark, city Clerk ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The following deletes the reference to MN. Statute 340A.412 because it was repealed by the Legislature. The City Attorney has suggested that the City ~etain this section and the added language covers conditions that must be followed and provides the City with a means to collect the bond if necessary. Section 800:10, Subd. 6, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 6. Bond. Each application for a license shall be accompanied by a surety bond or, in lieu thereof, cash or United State Government bonds of equivalent market value~ ac bond or other security shall be in the sum of $5,000.00 for an applicant for an "On-Sale" license, club license, or an "On-Sale" wine license. Ail such bonds shall provide that no cancellation for any cause can be made either by the bonding company or the applicant, without said person first giving 30 days written notice to the City, addressed to the city Manager, of intention to cancel bond. Any bond filed under this subdivision shall be conditioned on the licensee obeying all laws governing the business and paying all taxes, fees, penalties and other charges; and must provide that the bond is forfeited to the City of Mound on a violation of any law regulatinq the use, sale, consumption or display of alcoholic beverages, as that term is defined in Chapter 340A oz Minnesota Statutes. printed on recycled paper The following updates our ordinance to comply with MN. Statute 340A.409, Subd. 4. This section for On-Sale Wine Licenses was under Beer Licensing (Section 810:10, Subd. 2(c)) before. Section 800:10, Subd. 7, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 7. Insurance. Prior to the issuance of a liquor license, the applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility shall be given by filing a certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the minimum coverages for dram shop liability as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subdivision 1. It is the intent of this section to require the minimum insurance coverages and amounts required by Minnesota law. (ORD. #33-1989 - 9-18-89) Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 340A.409, Subd. 4, of Minnesota Statutes, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to waive the foreqoinq requirements as they pertain, to insurance for on-sale wine licenses with sales of less than the amount set forth in the Statute if said licensee files ar, affidavit from a Certified Public Accountant to show that sales are under the amount set forth in the Statute. The licensee must also file a written commitment with the City Clerk that if the sales reach the amount set forth in the Statute, the licensee will not continue to sell wine until he or she has filed a certificate of insurance meetinq the .requirements set forth in this Section 800:10, Subd. 7. 3. The following is a suggested deletion. Section 800:25 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 800:25. Persons Ineligible for License. No license shall be granted to any person made ineligible for such a license by state law. -~ -~- ~ dc City The following updates our ordinance to comply with MN. Statute 340A.409, Subd. 4. Section 810:10, Subd. 2, (c) is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Subject to the restrictions set forth in Section 340A.409, Subd. 4, of Minnesota Statutes, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to waive the foregoing requirements for on-sale or off-sale non-intoxicating liquor licenses with sales of less than ~ 0~ ......... the amounts set forth in the Statute if said licensee files an affidavit from a Certified Public Accountant to show that sales are under ~ ~n ........ the amounts set forth in the Statute. The licensee must also file a written commitment with the City Clerk that if the sales reach y~v,~v, the amounts set forth in the Statute, the licensee will not continue to sell on-sale or off-sale non-intoxicating liquor ~until he or she has filed a certificate of insurance meeting the requirements set forth in this Section 810:10. 5. The following is a suggested deletion. Section 810:25 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 810:25. Persons Ineliqible for License. No license shall be granted to any person made ineligible for such a license by state law. ~'o, 1~ ...... ~ ~ ~^ ~ ..... ~ to .... ~--~,,~ i ....................... ~ ........... ~ho ~ ~ .... ~^-~ ~ th~ City e This was deleted from the 800:00 section of the ordinance in 1990. At that time, it was missed in Section 810:00. Section 810:30, Subd. 4 is hereby repealed. FOR APRIL 28, 1992, COUNCIL MEETING ~OU~-D VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. requests the following permits for the June 13, 1992, Fish Fry. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Temporary Set-Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE MOUND CITY DAYS - June 19, 20 & 21, 1992 requests the following Permits with FEES WAIVED. Carnival Parade Concessions Craft Shows Entertainment Fireworks Merchant Sales NORTMWEST TONKA LIONS - requests the following permits for the Mound City Days Celebration June 19, 20, & 21, 1992. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted/ Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit - 2 days - 2 locations as follows: June 20,~\1992 - Pond Arena June 21. 1992 - Mound Bay Park Temporary Set-Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH - requests the following licenses for the Incredible Festival July 25 & 26, 1992. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Temporary Set-Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE FOR APRIL 28, 1992, COUNCIL MEETING MOHAWK JAYCEES - May 1, 1992 - Fund Raising Dance - American Legion 8:30 to 12:30 Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE BILLS April 28, 1992 BATCH 2042 TOTAL BILLS 189,433.12 189,433.12 ~ Z Z {3, Z 0 ~Z 0 0000000000 IJlllllll 0 ,-4 000 ! ! ! I ,4,-4 O0 0 ,-~ Z O0 o o U JO5 ~Z C, o Oo I -4' ! .-4 0 Z 0 Z .J Z~ 0 ~ ' 4' ' ~j ' '' 0 ~'~ z ,,,4' 0~ Ix) ~t _J n,- L~ 0 ,4' % 0 ! 0 Z 0 o '3O Z :Z ..J ~'3 Z n,' a: ,,.J O...J ,,( ,< Z 0 .?.. ,.-I n- O Z ta..J 3,. Z ~' z c~ 0 ,4' Z ~D Z 0 I I I I I .1- I Z Z J n~ 0 ~ Z · 0 Z Z ZO ~ o ~LU Z 0 n o rY o n Z IIII I I Illl I ZZZZ ZZZZO ~Z · ~ ID. :Z; I ~-J ~Z ~ aO 0 ,4' L~J aid n~ 0 Z oo I , ,-t I 0 U 0 ! -4' I Z I aDZ Z 0 0 J 0 N 0 Z CITY OF MOUND 1991 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES MARCH 1998 25. OY. GENERAL FUND Council Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers BUDGET MARCH YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED 67280 443? 20238 47042 30.08~ 1380 61 ?80 600 56.52~ 166790 13449 37201 129589 22.30~ 14800 138 1828 18972 18.35K 46260 124 132 46128 0.29~ 147090 10281 28186 118904 19.16~ 31000 3816 11229 19771 36.22~ 83950 4563 9421 ?4529 11.22~ ?44890 53312 163006 581884 21.88~ 3350 4 362 2988 10.81~ 127000 11828 29117 9?883 22.93~ 402900 25238 91915 310985 22.81~ 20180 2148 384? 16933 16.09~ 90150 589? 14844 ?5306 16.47~ 132990 8510 19898 113092 14.96~ 31610 0 0 31610 0.00~ 20000 408 654 19346 3.27~ 119730 9397 28193 91537 23.55~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 2251350 153611 460251 1791099 20.44~ 221600 9728 45287 176313 20.44~ 178920 13340 45301 133619 25.32~ 353060 41837 82921 270139 23.49~ 971190 67040 169199 801991 17.48~ 100900 5?93 14179 86781 14.05~ 4830 0 837 3393 19.79~ 46850 636? 15328 31522 32.72~ GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and F'ermits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND BUDGET 118825(]) 820900 326(]) CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REVENUE REF'ORT MARCH 1992 MARCH YTD REVENUE 25.(i)% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 0 1859 1186391 0.16% -1250 26367 794533 3.21% 3?9 1(])59 22(])1 32.48% 69500 65?6 15088 54412 21.91% 41250 1130 3464 3??86 8.40% ?5000 4533 9685 65315 12.91% 10000 1865 4739 5263 49.39% 51250 1800 2112 49138 4.12% 2259410 15(i)33 64391 2195039 2.85% 221600 29380 99255 144345 34.86~ 1180000 ?5885 838050 94?950 19.69~ 35000() 24910 76691 293329 21.91~ 650000 53119 160055 489945 24.62% 91000 18319 66136 4864 93.15% 118930 3181 9938 108992 8.3?% 3200 400 2000 1200 62.50% APR P, 0 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 25,.1992 Tonka Bay City Hall DI AFT CALL TO ORDER: Reese at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair ROLL CALL: Members Present: Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven; james Grathwol, Excelsior; Jan Boswinkel, Treasurer, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; George C. Owen, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Steven Tallen, Prosecuting Attorney; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Wm. A. Johnston, Minnetonka; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Robert Slocum, Woodland. ' READING OF MINUTES: Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to dispense with the reading of the 2/26/92 minutes and to approve them as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from persons in attend- ance not on the agenda. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: There were no announcements from the Chair. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr A. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn Penn presented the minutes of the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force meeting held on 3/17/92. SONAR TEST TREATMENT. Penn reported representatives of the DNR, Lake cities, LMCD, Lake Associations, residents of Carsons Bay, St. Louis Bay and St. Albert's Bay, Freshwater Foundation and of DowElanco were present to talk about the use of SONAR, an aquatic herbicide, for treatment of EWe. The DowElanco people shared test results of SONAR used in Michigan lakes. The consen- sus was that before proceeding to test SONAR, a base line needs to be established to measure the impact of SONAR. This year is to be an information building period. Testing the chemical fol- lows next year. - continued Wendy Crowell, University of Minnesota, has submitted an estimate of $7~160 to do an aquatic plant inventory in St. Al- ban's Bay. The cost of a SONAR application on St. Albania Bay as an example, is between $20,000 and $25,000. The cost is expected to be shared by the city, Bay lakeshore owners and L~CD., Dow Elanco is not supportinE individual lake tests with product. It is providing DNR $5,000 worth of SONAR (5 gals) to use as it determines. ~ Penn ~aid the Task Force is still in a data gathetiu$, stage and not ~eady to make a proposal to the Board. Foster said some residents off. St. Louis Bay and, the City of Deephaven are willing to contribute some ,treatment~ money. Foster would like the District to consider the St. Louis Biy as a test area this year. He acknowledged that there would not be time for a scientific aquatic plant inventory,~ but:::~it would demonstrate the potential for cost sharing. SONAR hasj~to be applied shortly after ice out. He would not like todei~treat- word chemical , ~here will bm conum~n by effect on the Lakes'fishing and~°ther want to atar~ tr~athen~'w~tho~.~>~h~'~ara and: co~u~i~at.iy~.~.wit Howard :: Berm is, Deepha~e~: CJ~!t~i~UnC~:~l~!~:s~.!:~~.~ place, penn 'said that ir this could be~a~ransed~.b~~~B~s-~ thro~sh~th~ DNR he Would not Object, ~ut any basis r objeCtin8 to the.:City and SONAR at their expense, ae would not endors'~':.t~l;~a ~jeha{~i~ the The executive director ~aid'~='~Pu~pos~-~O[9~ha~'tO{ram' initiated by the District, is to find a bay in Which ~to, do an evaluation of SONAR, it would then determine if it could be used over all of Lake Minnetonka. The cost of treating the whole Lake has been suggested to be $2 million. Boswinkel wondered if there is soae way the people on Crys- tal Bay could p~rticipate by shore treatment and keep track of what happens. Penn responded thai SONAR is not good for spot ~'>.-- carlsoh"spoke' in favOr'S'of doin&~the compl6t~l ~,t~~=, ; If there is:~ 'the possibility of obtainin8' outside~fundi~& it Is imPori~nt to;~have complat~ documentation, He..said this~ iS a,.iood '~eg~~io'~'dO'the'pr~liminary~st~d~'Whtle~ the Lake~ls~h!i~i~ low Milfoil"~rowth is expected, ~ ,~,':'t,~a~ study. In his opinion the St. Louis proposal is an opportunity to demonstrate that it through cooperation. .--~ . . LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 The executive director said St. Alban's Bay was being con- sidered as it would meet the criteria for study because it is an enclosed bay, has a variety of depths and a rariety of aquatic plant growth. ' MOTION: Penn moved, Grathwol seconded, to support $7,160 for the investigation of the effect of SONAR herbicide on Eura- sian Water Milfoil and native vegetation per the proposal submit- ted by Wendy 3. Crowell. DISCUSSION: Penn said a specific bay would have to be selected. It would have to have the support of the city and the residents before proceeding with the expenditure. In response to Carlson's question about the timing, the executixTe director said the aquatic plant study could start as late as mid-May. IIe e::,'lained the technical procedures used in doing the survey. Boswinkel was interested in knowing the position the Fresh- water Foundation has taken on the subject. The executive direc- tor said they have a representative on the Task Force and have been supportive of the proposal. Markus suggested using data from other studies. Penn re- sponded that the btichigan studies do not necessarily reflect the situation on Lake Minnetonka because of the depth of the lakes studied. The Task Force was invited by DowElanco to visit the sites in Michigan. Penn said it would be better to do the study locally. Owen said politically this will be closely watched and the possibility for misinformation should be avoided. It is impor- tant that whatever the District does is done carefully. Foster said it is important to do an LbtCD study. He said St. Alban's Bay would be ideal because it is large but because of its size will cost a lot of money. {$20,0000 - $25,000 is the preliminary estimate for a bay of 165 acres with the water volume involving depths from 30' - 48'.) ~OTION AS AMENDED: Penn moved, Grathwol seconded, to ap- prove the concept of the plan to go ahead with the scientific study and to present more specifics on bays and the cost of the study at the next meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Independent Evaluation of Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program. Penn said a Management Plan objective calls for the inde- pendent evaluation during 1992 of the weed harvesting program. A draft outline of the areas to consider in doing the evaluation was distributed. The evaluation is to be completed by January, 1993. The cooperating agencies are the MN DXR, University of Minnesota, Hennepin County, Freshwater Foundation, ~linnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin Parks. The executive director and Chair Hurt have solic- ited comments on the draft from the cooperating agencies. lb'il LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 2. WATER STRUCTURES, Grathwol for Chair Babcock Consent Agenda MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the following agenda items unless a Board member, citizen or the petitioner requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a specific item. A. Approval of minutes, 3/14/92 meeting C. Ron Whinnery, Dock Length Variance, Carsons Bay: approv- ing length variance to 511' instructing Counsel to draft the Order. F. Bupp Dock Length Variance, Carsons Bay, approval of the Order granting the variance as drafted. G. Multiple Dock License Renewal Applications: Item 2. Chapman Place Marina, Cooks Bay, approval with the new agreement between Chapman Place Association and Vincent McClellan, dba Minnetonka Dock and Plow Service. Item 4. David Thomas Development (Bayshore III Addi- tion), South Upper Lake; approval subject to payment of outstand- ing fees. Item 5. Howard's Point Marina, South Upper Lake: approval (with changes in Slips 1-14 per site plan submitted 11/88) Item 6. 1992 Multiple Dock License Renewals Without Change Navarre Cove Homeowners Association, Carman's Bay Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments, Spring Park Bay Shoreline Marina & Yacht Club, Smiths Bay Subject to Village Certificate (expires 4/18/92): Driftwood Shores, ttarrisons Bay Hary Kreslins, St. Albans Bay Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Coffee Cove Park Hill/Park Island (for 44 BSU), Seton Lake Seton View, Seton Lake Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, South Upper Lake H. New Multiple Dock License Applications Item 2. City of Wayzata, Broadway Docks, Wayzata Bay Item 3. Clay Cliffe Homeowners Association, Old Chan- nel Bay Item 5. Eagle Bluff Homeowners Association, Halsteds Bay {Needs approval from the City of Minnetrista.) I. First Reading of Ordinance Relating to Storage of Lake Maintenance Equipment on Lake Minnetonka J. Deny request to Waive Late Fee for Shorewood Yacht Club, Currently Under Receivership. - continued LMCD Board of Directors VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: t, tarch 25, 1992 [lot ion carried unanimously. B. Rockvam Boat Yards, Site 2 Dock Length Variance, Coffee Cove. MOTION: Gratiiwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to approve the Rockvam Boat Yards, Site 2, length variance to 153' and the addition of a 25' make ready dock to accommodate the fishing boat amenity, instructing Counsel to draft the Order. VOTE: ,~otion carried unanimously. D. Halsted Acres Improvement Association (IfAIA). , New ~lultiple Dock License, Halsted's Bay Grathwol reported the committee recommended approval of a 7 slip multiple dock license, accepting $350 as negotiated back-licensing fees. There are 13 property owners of Out lot 1, Halstead Acres Second Addition. The Outlot has 365' of shore- line, for which the Code allows 7 slips. The application is for 13 sl ips. Rascop asked if the applicant has agreed to the 7 slips. Grathwol answered that the applicant is aware of the 7 slip limit that the recommendation al lows, but does not agree. Foster ex- pressed concern that the applicant could come back and contend that they are entitled to thirteen. LeFevere said the only way that could be done would be by back licensing to 1978. in order to do that the applicant would have to provide evidence that it had 13 docks at that time, and it has not been able to do that. MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to deny the appli- cation of Halsted Acres Improvement Association for a 13 slip multiple dock license and to approve a 7 slip multiple dock license, the number permitted under the LMCD Code, accepting $350 as a negotiated back licensing fee. An adjustment in application fees is to be made and the applicant is to submit a new site plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Bean's Greenwood Marina, New Multiple Dock License and Length Variance, St. Alban's Bay Grathwol presented tile commit tee recommendat ion to deny the variance to relocate 8 slips beyond 100' anti to recommend renewal of tile Multiple Dock License with 3 slips, #101, =T-Ill and #106. relocated within i00' I~IOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, 1 } To den5' the Greenwood ~larina variance application to relocate 8 slips beyond 100'; 2) The dock structure, Slip #40, 100, 99, 80, 79 and TllS, al lowed under a temporary low water variance, to be removed by ~lay 1, 1992; 3} The renewal application to be subject to further staff review of existing dock configuration and slip sizes. Jim Hillis. City of Greenwood Councilmember, asked whether Slip #82, is included in the motion. The executive director said #82, while licensed for 32', is actually 44', which is not in- cluded in the motion., tte said this and other slips are not in agreement with the site plan. - continued LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 Carlson suggested a time limit be placed on when Bean has to come in with an application for a new dock license. If not he would be operating without a license. MOTION AMENDED: The motion was amended to show that Bean is to be back to the Board with a revised application by the April Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Gl. Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the Excelsi- or Park Tavern Multiple Dock License renewal as follows: 1. Approval of the amenities, stipulated on the new dock license as: * Slip available for Sheriff's Water Patrol * Pool available for public swim lessons , Meeting room , Charter boat with passenger service and dock storage, minimum - 4 boats , Handicapped access to docks , Lakeside deck pedestrian lookout , Outdoor licensed food and beverage service * Dock attendant to monitor dock use 2. Approve 32 slip configuration for 12 transient and 20 is to storage slips. The drafting of the Order for the 40 slip license await applicant's final decision on the new dock plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. G3. Foxhill Homeowners Assn., Smiths Bay MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the relocation of Slip 1, a 32' slip with a 40' canopy, to the right of the Foxhill Homeowners Association main dock, subject to a letter of approval from the neighbor. DISCUSSION: LeFevere stated that the Foxhill Multiple Dock License exists under a length variance granted in 1978 for a specific configuration. That configuration was amended in 1985. LeFevere suggested the Board make it clear that the granting of a specific Multiple Dock License renewal with a change has the approval of the neighbor to the east. Thibault showed the site plan submitted 3-11-92 by Roy Zitzloff, which is not to scale. LeFevere noted that if the site plan for the original vari- ance and the dock plan approved in 1985 are changed to show slip #1 in a different location, it is no longer possible to build the rest of the dock without crossing the lot line to the west. It appears that for this year the Association is only planning on using 8 of 13 slips. The Board is proposing to approve only the plan as shown with the reduced number of slips. If the Associa- tion should want to add the 5 additional slips for which they are licensed as a non-conforming grandfathered license, they will have to re-apply to the Board with a new dock plan. t7_.-74 LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 Carlson said tie is uncomfortable because there is no men- t ioned of a side setback vari~tnce, tle bel i.eves the appl icat ion should go through the normal variance, procedure. Rascop respond- ecl that the Board has allowed slips within a setback with the permission of the neighbor, tCratkwol added this is consistent with Board action when there are converoing property lines LeFevere said there is a Code provision which allows adjacent property owners to adjust their side setbacks by mutual agree- merit. The executive director added that this particular (lock structure is below a bluff. The adjacent property owners are not bothered by the clock visually. VOTE: tlotion carried unanimously, II. New Multiple Dock License Applications Subject to Board Waiving Public tlearing Item 1) Schmitt's Marina, Excelsior Bay The Committee has recommended approval of a new dock license with a m/nor change to relocate two slips wi thin the Dock Use Area for Schmitt's ,'.larina, sub,jeer to apl)royal of the City of Excelsior. The executive director reported Schmitt is concerned about having to go through a further public review process with the City for a minor change. Grathwot nnd the executive director have contacted the ~ayor and Administrator of the City of Excel- sior and they have agreed the city has no need for further re- v i e w. ' MOTION: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve the application of Schmitt's ?qarina for a new ?,lultiple Dock License with a minor change in configuration that does not increase slip size, or number of BSU or WSU, waiving a Public Hearing. VOTE: ~{otion carried unanimously. Item 4. Minnetonka Yacht Club, Site 1, Carsons Bay Grathwol reported a question has been raised about allowing slides to be converted to docks. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to refer the ,~linne- tonka Yacht Club application back to the committee. VOTE: /~lotion carried unanimously. K. Additional Business Reese asked if there is a provision rectuiring a new ,~.lultiple Dock License holder to build the dock w/thin a certain period of time. Specifically he mentioned the EDP Partners license for a dock in Spring Park. Grathwol responded that Chair Babcock is working on that matter and will brinu it to the committee. LeFevere said the LMCD Code docs not have any time limita- tion. The reason it has not been included is that the licensing is on an annual basis. LeFevere said there may be some grandfa- thered status that the applicant may preserve as a result of Code changes since the Iicense was granted in 1989. - continued LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 MOTION: Rascop moved, Carlson seconded, to instruct LeFe- vere to draft a Code amendment to put a time limit on non-use of new licenses granted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Executive Director Strommen for Chair Foster. Due to a lack of a quorum, no committee recommen- dations were adopted. A. Special Event Application, Minnetonka Public Schools The Minnetonka Public Schools have made application for a Solar Boat Regatta, Saturday, 6/20/92 with 6/21/92 as an alter- nate for bad weather, Gideon's Bay, requesting L~ICD waive or reduce fees and deposit due to school project's limited funding. The executive director said the members present at the committee meeting on 3/16/92. suggested collecting tile full fee and making a contribution of an equal amount from the Save the Lake Fund. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to approve a Special Event Permit for the Minnetonka Public Schools for a Solar Boat Regatta on 6/20/92 or 6/21/92. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to contribute, from the Save the Lake Fund, to the Minnetonka High School Solar Boat Account, a sum equal to the Special Event Permit fee charged for the Solar Boat Regatta. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. B. New Wine and Beer License Applications for Al & Alma's Charter Boat I. The staff recommends waiving the investigation and investi- gation fee because of the previous approval of A1 & Alma's other six wine and beer licenses. Rascop asked where the boats are being stored. He mentioned previous problems with the charter boats being stored in unau- thorized locations. MOTION: Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, to waive the investigation and investigation fee for Al & Alma's Charter Boat I wine and beer licenses, contingent on their boats having a legal storage location. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Thibault added a Public Hearing will be held in April for these new wine and beer license applications. 3. Fundraising Proposal - Tonka Wet Spot Corp. The executive director summarized a fund raising proposal by Tonka Wet Spot which offered $1 per T-shirt sold to the Save the Lake Fund. The T-shirt slogan, "Locals Only, Lake Minnetonka" was deemed not in the public interest and therefore proposed to be declined. The Board concurred without further discussion. LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 4. Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler added one more ice incident to the Water Patrol report submitted to the Lake Use and Recreation Committee. A person on a bike went through the ice in a channel and sus- tained injuries. This makes a total of 31 through-the-ice inci- dents: 14 cars, 12 snowmobiles, 1ATV, 3 people~l animal. Chandler reported the Hennepin County Board will host the National Association of Counties convention in Minneapolis this summer. The Water Patrol has been nominated for an award for its training, education and enforcement of the Boating While Intoxi- cated law. As an aside Chandler added that the only state to exceed Minnesota in BWI arrests was Florida with 207. Minnesota had 206, 73 on Lake Minnetonka. He anticipates the numbers will go down because of education, preventive enforcement and use of the designated driver. Rascop said he received reports from the two consultants responding to the Management Plan Boat Use Density Study Request for Proposals that they encountered boaters leaving the Lake who were "too drunk to interview". That was in 1986, 1988 and 1989. Boswinkel mentioned litter left on Wayzata Bay from fish houses. Chandler said DNR Conservation Officers handled the clean up. They have cited 6 or 7 people for leaving debris. Rascop said a DNR Conservation Officer told him the Count>' will not prosecute misdemeanors occurring on the Lake. Rascop suggested violations be written on the LMCD Code. Steven Tallen, LblCD prosecutor, questioned that the County Attorney would allow his people to make a decision not to prosecute. Tallen will inquire further. Chandler reported it appears that the bill introduced in the legislature strengthening provisions of the DWI law will pass. The law will provide for DWI offenses to be considered in a BWI citation, bringing the BWI portion of the law in line with the DWI penalties throughout the State. 4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Grathwol Grathwol reported the first meeting of the Lake Access Task Force was held on 3/11/92. He thanked the eight directors who were present. There was a frank and open exchange of views. Since the meeting he has met with people who might be helpful in pursuing the activities of the Task Force. He will have more specifics shortly. Com~nissioner Sando of the DNR has indicated they are willing to commit staff to the Task Force. 5. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel A. The Board received the Statement of Casts Transactions for the month ending 2/29/92. The report was ordered filed. B. Audit of. Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Boswinkel moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $17,907.97, Checks # 8409 through 8448. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 The executive director reported the 1991 audit has been received from Schibilla & Associates. Before submitting it to the Board he will go over it with the officers. There are no points of concern at this time. The financial position is re- flected as being in line with the closing report of the year. The audit will be available at the next meeting. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Strommen reported that the Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen is leaving the Holmes & Graven firm to share office space with the firm of Luther, Ballenthin & Carruthers. Tallen said Holmes & Graven has decided not to offer prose- cution service anymore. Tallen does not plan any changes in the terms and conditions of his appointment by the District. The executive director stated Kim Elvrum, DNR, has spoken highly of Steve Tallen's services. Chandler said the Water Patrol has been more than happy working with Steve Tal len. Chandler said Tallen is the most knowlecigeable and experienced attorney for water prosecutions in the state. MOTION: Foster moved. Boswinkel seconded, to continue Steven Tallen's services as prosecuting attorney for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in association with Luther, Ballenthin & Carruthers. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. 1992 Lake Minnetonka Boat Use Study and Recommendation of Consultant Strommen reported responses to the request for proposals to prepare and execute a study of Lake Minnetonka were received from Dr. David Arndorfer, Arndorfer Associates Inc., Knoxville, TN and Dr. Arnie Blomquist, Biocentric, Inc., Arden Hills, MN. Both applicants are highly qualified. A review of the proposals was conducted by four MN DNR specialists along with LMCD Board members Reese, Rascop and Grathwol and the executive director. The prospects were further interviewed by Tim Kelly MN DNR Research analyst, Grathwol, Rascop and Strommen. The recommendation submitted in the 3/25/92 report from Strommen notes that the LMCD and MN DNR are fortunate to have two qualified bidders for this project. Two factors in particular, however, favor the recommendation of Dr. Arnold Blomquist, Bio- centric, Inc.: - 1) the firm's demonstrated and full understand- ing of the critical aerial photo requirements of the project and 2) the stronger research team. consisting of three support staff in addition to Dr. Blomquist. These three persons provide a PhD in Statistics and Experimental Design from the University of Minnesota, a survey research specialist, and research assistant for natural resource and recreation studies. - continued L O LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to accept the recommendation as stated and to authorize the officers of the LMCD to execute a contract with Biocentric, Inc. to prepare and execute a study of 1992 Lake b'linnetonka boat use, subject to approval by the MN DNR. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director stated the DNR will execute a sepa- rate state contract to help fund the study, sharing on one-half the $25,000 contract fee. C. Over-Flight of Lake and Photography Opportunity The executive director reported an opportunity is available to do an aerial car/trailer count on April 18 during the Holiday- Johnson Crappie Tournament. David Dotzenroth, a private pilot, has offered his services and the use of his airplane at an $85 hourly rate to make a photographic survey of the lake accesses. Strommen would participate as the photographer. The overall project cost would not be in excess of $300. Strommen will also look into acquiring more suitable camera equipment for the task. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to authorize arrangements for an over-flight of the Lake and photographic survey of accesses as detailed by the executive director. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Board Workshop April 25, 1992 has been tentatively set as the date for a full Board workshop. The executive director said the idea he suggests would be to secure a consultant to present a program on team building. The cost of a professional presenter could range from $500 to $1500. An orientation program for the board members would follow. An indication from the members as to the kind of things they would like to discuss would be solicited in a mailed survey. Boswinkel suggested the presentation should include the background and the history of the LMCD. Carlson said he would not be enthusiastic about spending $1500. Rascop believes there are issues that the members should discuss. Owen said, as a new member he needs information on the financial history, dock history and to hear from the more experi- enced members. The executive director will proceed with plans for a one day workshop on April 25 and arrange for a facilitator. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Reese declared the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Signatures on Page 12 LMCD Board of Directors March 25, 1992 David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary Action Report: R C'U APR 2 3 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 4:30 p.m., Monday, April 20, 1992 Norwest Bank, Wayzata, Community Room Members Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven, Chair; James Grathwol, Excelsior; David Cochran, Greenwood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Cochran at 4:35 p.m. The agenda was amended to consider the Stipulations for New Special Event Applications as the first item. Foster assumed the Chair. Special Events A. Stipulations for New Special Event Applications Thibault submitted stipulations for Open Water Fishing Tournaments Special Event Permits. The stipulations are the same as in the past with the addition of notification to the partici- pants regarding the requirements to be met for exotic control before launching in Lake Minnetonka and removal of lake weeds upon leaving the Lake. Reese asked for a change in wording in line 5 of 3.a. to read: ...Superior mu-s-F-be must have been thoroughly dried or washed down with .... MOTION: Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approv- al of the revised Stipulations for Open Water Fishing Tournament New Special Event Applications. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. New Applications MOTION: Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend ap- proval of the following new Special Event Applications, subject to the recommended stipulations: 1) American Jail Association, Fishing Tournament, Tuesday, May 26, 1992 2)IN Bass Tournaments of MN, Bass Tournament, Sunday, June 28, 1992 3) Minnesota Timberwolves Foundation, Jimmy Rodgers Celebrity Fishing Tournament, Tuesday, June 9, 1992 The request of the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Fourth of July Fireworks Display, July 4, 1992, was tabled to the next meeting of the committee at the request of the applicant. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake Use and Recreation Committee April 20, 1992 2. Wine and Beer License Renewal Applications; Liquor License Renewal Application with On-Sale Sunday Option. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of the following: Wine and Beer License Renewals subject to Hennepin County Sheriff's Department verification and issuance of Charter Boat Certificates A. Al & Alma's Charter Boats II, III, VI, X, XI, XII B. Paradise Princess Liquor License Renewal with On-Sale Sunday Option, subject to issuance of Charter Boat Certificate. Queen of Excelsior VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. Purpose, Goals and Objectives for Lake Use and Recreation Committee The Lake Use & Recreation Committee Goals & objectives as presented were those detailed in the Management Plan. The execu- tive director explained they were presented to the Committee for comments and prioritization. It was explained that a consultant has been engaged to conduct the overall lake use objectives to develop a design to measure boat density by type of watercraft, and distribution of active, beached and rafting boats. Both items are scheduled for this year. This is also the first year of the objective to conduct a random survey at least once every four years of lake users' attitudes and perceptions. Reese suggested adding control of wakes and noise as en- forcement and education objectives. Chandler said noise enforce- ment will be enhanced by the new technology developed by the PCA to run decibel tests on suspected violators'without setting up a course. - Reese suggested adding control of lighting to the objec tives. ,, ,, Grathwol said additional numbers on use of the lake need to be developed to formulate data which will draw greater funding to Lake Minnetonka programs. Foster asked Grathwol to take this suggestion and develop a further plan. Reese was excused. The subject of how to define an "event" was added for dis- cussion. Chandler has been working with a committee from the State Sheriff's Association to determine what constitutes an event on the Lake. He will furnish Foster and the Committee with information from their study. The executive director pointed out that a Special Event is defined in the Code. {Sect. 1.02 Subd. 53 and Sect. 3.09). It was agreed that the definition of a Special Event needs further review. - continued Lake Use and Recreation Committee April 20, 1992 The executive director asked for discussion of the enforce- ment and education objective to review and revise water patrol enforcement levels annually. He questioned whether this review should be made before or after the 1992 boating season. Foster responded that the Committee will work on enforcement levels with the water patrol. Grathwol asked that the water patrol list of temporary structures be brought into LSICD records. Thibault responded that the office does get a list, but temporary structures are not being licensed by the LMCD. The committee agreed the subject belongs with the Water Structures Committee. It was agreed Grathwol and Foster will work on prioritiza- tion of additional items to be studied, i.e., wakes, noise lighting, definition of an event. ' 4. Section 3.09 Special Events, Subd. 5 Open Water Fishing Con- tests Section 3.09 Subd. 5 Special Events lists the special re- quirements for open water fishing contests. One requirement is that renewal applications submitted later than 90 days before the scheduled event shall be accompanied by a late fee as prescribed by Resolution of the Board. Thibault questioned the purpose of the 90 day requirement. The executive director suggested 30 to 45 days would be ample administrative review time for renewals. Rascop said one reason for the time period is to be sure there is no conflict among the various events. MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Code amendment to reduce the time period for submission of a renewal application for open water fishing contests from 90 days to 30 days. The executive director suggested that, in view of other possible changes in the Code referencing Special Events, the amendment be held until it can all be done at one time to save preparation and publishing costs. Thibault also noted there is a Resolution which specifies a 90 day advance renewal requirement and that should be reviewed at the same time. Rascop suggested getting representatives of the fishing community involved. The motion was tabled to the staff. 5. Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler reported as follows: * Buoys are being put in with an expected 5/9/92 or earlier completion date. * The Holiday-Johnson Crappie Tournament went off fine. There were 42 boat stops made. One citation was issued, six written warnings, twenty-nine verbal warnings and six contacts without enforcement. Most stops were for moving violations. * Charter boat and rental boat inspections have started. Water Patrol inspections are being done in conjunction with the State Health Department and boiler inspector. The Queen of Excelsior and Paradise Princess have been inspected. - continued Lake Use and Recreation Committee April 20, 1992 * There was 1BWI citation issued on 4/19. * The Sheriff's Water Patrol annual report has been fur- nished to Chair Cochran. It is an expanded report over previous years. There is more information in it comparing Lake Minnetonka with the other Hennepin County lakes. A summary will be distrib- uted. At Rascop's suggestion, the Committee commended Sgt. Chan- dler for the timely report. Foster raised the question of the delay in issuance of current watercraft licenses due to titling processing by the DNR. He anticipates this will be an enforcement problem for the water patrol as the current DNR license stickers may not be available until late in the year. Chandler responded that the DNR lacks the funds to speed up the processing. He said the deputies understand the problem and, while stops will be made, warnings rather than citations will be issued for out of date registra- tions. The executive director asked how extensive the coverage is in inspecting the rental boats. Chandler said all operations in the county are contacted. The executive director would like to see the Lake Minnetonka summer rules distributed to the business- es. Chandler said a copy could be sent with the water patrol letter to the businesses with information on how to get addition- al copies from the LMCD. Responding to a question from Foster about the winter expe- rience, Chandler said it was a hazardous winter because of the ice conditions. There was a considerable increase in property thefts. One success was the break up of a snowmobile theft ring. Vehicles through the ice increased. The fish house count was down by about 400 to some 800. 6. Special Events Code Amendment The committee received a Policy and Procedures Committee report to authorize the executive director to issue NEW special event permits, subject to the Code provisions of Subd. 3.09, and Water Patrol approval. MOTION: Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded to recommend to the Board to have a Code amendment prepared to allow the execu- tive director issue new and renewal special event permits. DISCUSSION: The executive director said monthly reports could be prepared for the Board to keep them informed. Addition- al consultation could be held with any Board member whose commu- nity would be involved. Rascop suggested that if an event were to be in more than one community, it should be referred to the Board. There was no action. This proposed amendment along with the previously discussed amendments to the Special Event section of the Code was tabled to the staff for coordination into one pro- posal. Lake Use and Recreation Committee 7. Adjournment April 20, 1992 Grathwol moved, Cochran seconded, that the meeting be ad- journed. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair 5 PARKS EC'D APR ' Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Districl · ~5 County Rood 9 :u~ ?2) ~9-3287 ~rd of Commi~ioners :- zz- n~or '.:'C~sP EOiC~ .'ce B'~'~.m Center ~ / ~bro~ ?-~.S Pork ~m~ M ~te F Br,/ont mtendent & y to the Board TO: April 20, 1992 FROM: RE: City Manager/City Clerk/City Adxmlnistrator .\ Robert M. Wtcklund, Dtrectorl~ Department of Admintstratlonl~' Henneptn Parks Redistricting The Board of Commissioners of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (Hennepln Parks) will be holding a Public Hearing on Proposed Redistricting of Henneptn Parks Co~ntsstoner Districts on May 7, 1992 in the Board Room of the Hennepin Parks Administrative Office, 12615 County Road g, Plymouth. The purpose of the hearing is to receive comments regarding the proposed Commissioner election districts required by the results of the lg90 census. The proposed redistricting is to be in effect for the 1992 election. Enclosed are four options for redistricting which have been adopted by the Board for presentation at the public hearing. We would appreciate it if you would post this Inform&tton in your City Hall so as to inform any residents who may be interested in attending the hearing. If anyone has any questions concerning redistricting, they should be directed to call me at 559-6?52. Thank you for your cooperation. RECYCLED PAPER - Conserving Our Resources A~ Equol Opl~r'~4~ Eml:>k:>yer /ZY~ SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS Hinover Rogerl 0ayton Chlmplin Maple Grove Greenfield ¢orcorln Oiled I~ooklyn Plrk ilockford I 2 HENNEPIN Medina Independence Mai)It Plain Mlnnetrllta Mound Long Like Drano St. lonlfaclul Plymouth NOW NOpe Medicine Lake Wayzata Woodland Mlnnetoflk& Illth Idlnnetonk a Spring Park Doephiven Hopklni Tonkl lay Greenwood J4 Excelalor Bhorewood New Commillioner Olltricti were elt&blilhed by Reiolution of the Plrk Dlltrict 8olrd on December S, !e86, puriuant to Legillition ~ ~y ~ lg85 L~t~e. ~Wi KtK It ~ ieee ~ ~ ~ ht~ti 1, 3, ~ 6 Hrve 4-yw t~i, ~N ~ h~tl 2 ~ 4 ~e 2-ye~ Eden Prairie Brooklyn Center iCryitoJ It. Anthony Golden Vllley 3 Bt. I. ouli Idlnnollolll Idtne lllollflold 5 lloo.llnltol dr All ef CfYltll ii il Olltrlot t PA~ CC]MMISSIONER OISTRICTS (Taken from lgBO Census) Chamoltn Corcoran Dayton Greenfield Hanover Hassan Independence Loretto Maple Grove Maple Platn Medina Medicine Lake New HOpe Osseo Plymouth Rockford Rogers Total 9.006 4,252 1,391 248 1.766 2. 640 297 20.525 1,421 2.623 ¢19 23,087 2,974 31,615 380 107,296 Chanhassan Oeephaven Eden Pratrte Excelsior Greenwood Hopkins Long Lake Mlnnetonka Mtnnetonka Beach Mlnnetrtsta Mound Orono St. Bon&factus ShorewcxXl Spring Park Tonka Bay wayzata Wcx)dland Total pooulatlon 8 3,7t6 16,263 2,523 653 15.336 1.747 38.683 575 3,236 9,280 6.845 857 4.646 1,465 1,354 3,621 111,334 Crystal Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Robbinsdale St. Anthony Total 25,543 31.230 43,332 14,422 120,146 CIty Bloomington Ft. Snelllng Richfield Total 81,831 223 119,905 DISTRICT 3 Edina Golden Valley St. Louis Park Total 3452C/72 46,073 22,775 111,779 OPTION A I CO),&4I SS IONER DISTRICT CO),~ISSIONER DISTRICT COt~ISSIONER DISTRICT COU),4I SS IONER DISTRICT COUUISSIONER DISTRICT mm PARK COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS: OPTION A (Taken from 1990 Census) DISTRICT 1 City Population City Champltn 16,849 Corcoran 5,199 Dayton 4,392 Greenfield 1,450 Hanover 269 Hassan 1,951 Independence 2,822 Loretto 404 Maple Grove 38,736 Maple Plain 2,005 Medina 3,096 Medicine Lake 385 Osseo 2,704 Plymouth 50,889 Rockford 440 Rogers 698 Wayzata 3.806 Chanhassan Deephaven Eden Prairie Excelsior Greenwood Hopkins Long Lake Mlnnetonka Mlnnetonka Beach Mtnnetrtsta Mound Orono St. Bonafaclus Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Woodland Total 136,095 Total Population 0 3,653 39,311 2,367 614 16,534 1,984 48,370 573 3,439 9,634 7,285 1,180 5,g17 1,571 1,472 496 144,400 DISTRICT 2 City Population DISTRICT 5 Clty Brooklyn Center 28,887 Bloomington Brc,:d~lyn Park 56,381' Ft. Snelltng Crystal 23,788 Richfield Robbtnsdale 14,396 St. Anthony 5.278 Total Total 128,730 86,335 97 35.710 122,142 DISTRICT 3 City population Edtna 46,070 Golden Valley 20,971 New Hope 21,853 St. Louis Park 43.787 Total 132,681 3452C/73 Total Population Arithmetic Average Acceptable Range 664,048 132,809 119,528-146,089 Largest District Smallest Dlstrtct Difference 144,400 22,258 OPTION B I CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT I - V////~i CO~4~ISSIONER DISTRICT 2 - ',:~:::tt I CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT 3 · b,~\~'t CO~4ISSlONER DISTRICT 4 -~ CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT $-~ / 2.~// PARK COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS' OPTION B (Taken from lggo Census) DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 4 City Population City Population Corcoran 5,199 Chanhassan 0 Dayton 4,392 Deephaven 3,653 Greenfield 1,450 Eden Prairie 39,311 Hanover 269 Excelsior 2,367 Hassan 1,951 Greenwood 614 Independence 2,822 Long Lake 1,984 Loretto 404 Mlnnetonka 48,370 Maple Grove 38,736 Mtnnetonka Beach 573 Maple Plain 2,005 Minnetrista 3,439 Medina 3,096 Mound 9,634 Medicine Lake 385 Orono 7,285 New Hope 21,853 St. Bontfactus 1,180 Osseo 2,704 Shorewood 5,917 Plymouth 50,889 Spring Park 1,571 Rockford 440 Tonka Bay 1,472 Rogers 698 Wayzata 3,806 Woodland 496 Total 137,293 Total 131,672 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 5 City Pooulatton City ~ Brooklyn Center 28,887. Bloomington 86,335 Brooklyn Park 56,381 Ft. Snelltng 97 Champltn 16,849 Richfield 35,710 Crystal 23,788 St. Anthony 5.278 Robbinsdale 14.396 Total 127,420 Total 140,301 Clty Edlna Golden Valley Hopkt ns St. Louts Park Total 3452C/74 46,070 20,971 16,534 43.787 127,362 Total population Arithmetic average Acceptable range 664,048 132,809 119,528-146,089 Optton B Largest Dtstrlct Smallest District Difference 140.301 12,939 OPTION C COI~4ISSIONER DISTRICT I · ~ COI~ISSIOI~R DISTRICT Z · H-H-H-PH CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT 3 -~ COI~ISSIONER DISTRICT 4 'l ' I CO&NISSI~ER DISTRICT §- I~ OPTION F CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT I ' V/////I CO~ISSIONER DISTRICl' 2 ' H-+-H-+-I-H CO~4ISSIONER DISTRICT C~ISSI~ER DISTRICT 4 ' I..____.~ CO)~4ISSIONER DISTRICT $ OPTION F CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT COUUISSIONER DISTRICT 2 - CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT COU).(ISSIONER DISTRICT 4 '1 CO~ISSIONER DISTRICT PARK COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS: OPTION (Taken from 1990 Census) F DISTRICT I Clty Deephaven Excelsior Greenfield Greenwood Hanover Independence Long Lake Loretto Maple Grove Maple Plain Medina Medicine Lake Mtnnetonka Beach Minnetrtsta Mound Orono Plymouth Rockford St. Bontfacius Shorewood Spring Park TonKa Bay Wayzata Woodland Total DISTRICT City Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Corcoran Dayton Hassan Osseo Robbtnsdale Rogers Total DISTRICT 3 Population City 3,653 2,367 1,450 614 269 2,822 1,984 404 38,736 2,005 3,096 385 573 3,439 9,634 7,285 50,889 440 1,180 5,917 1,571 1,472 3,806 496 144,047 Pooulatlon 28,887 56,381 16,849 5,199 4,392 1,951 2,704 14,396 698 130,759 C~olden Valley Crystal Hopkins New Hope St. Louis Park Total Populatign 20,971 23,788 15,534 21,853 43.787 126,933 DISTRICT 4 City Chanhassen Eden Prairie Edtna Mtnnetonka Total DISTRICT 5 City Bloomington Fort Snelltng Richfield St. Anthony Total Population 0 39,311 46,070 48.370 133,751 86,335 97 35,710 127,420 Total population Arithmetic average Acceptable range 664,048 132,809 119,528-146,089 Option F Largest 01strict Smallest Dtstrtct Otfference 144,047 17,114 Annual Parks Tour 1992 Let's view Mound's public lands from the lake! City Council, Park and Open Space Planning Commission and Economic Commission Commission, Development Where? Meet at Al & Alma's Docks (Chester Park) Time? Board at 5.'45 p.m., boat will depart at 6.'00 p.m. (tour expected to last until 9.'OO p. m.) When ? Thursday, May 21, 1992 Dinner? Will be provided. Rain or Shine! RSVP by May 8th - call Peggy at 472-0607 .JOSEPH £. HAMILTON HERBERT p. LEFLER LAW OFFICES LEFEVE:RE:. LE::FLF'R, HAMILTON Al,ID PE:ARSON IIOO FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 March 12, 1976 Hr. Len Kopp, City Manager City of Hound 5341 Maywood Road ~ound, Hinnesota 55364 Re: ~,~aintenance Permits Dear Len: I have your note of ~,!arch 5, 1976, asking whether a maintenance permit would run with the land or whether it would terminate when ownership of the abutting lot terminates. It is my opinion that the maintenance permit would run with the land just as would a special Use permit. The second part of your question inquires as to whether that permit could be revoked if the abutting property o~,~er sold his property, i cannot give you a definite answer to that question. The Council can impose that type of a condition into the permit which would certainly place the existing owner on notice of a responsibility to remove the encroachment prior to the time he conveys the title to his property. If he does not abide by that condition the City would then have to take legal action against the new owner and the old owner to require the structure or encroachment to be removed. In those few cases where houses or boat houses or major structures were encroaching on Con~ons, it may be possible to work out some form of a plaque or notice which could be affixed to the structure indicating the date that that structure would have to be removed. This would give notice to the existing owner as well as to any potential purchaser of the requirement that the encroachment be removed and is one method of approaching the problem. It is also possible that we could devise some a g r e ement or stipulation between the owner and the city which would be recorded against the property and L~-FEVERE. LEF L. Li.;, PEARSON, O' ECRIEN & Page 2 Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager March 12, 1976 any new owner would obtain notice when he examined the title. I believe this is something that can be reviewed further and one of our problems with that approach is that it would require the city to in effect make a title examination to determine who o%.ms the property, because as you know in Mound, much of the property is sold under unrecorded contracts for deed and fre_cfuently the people we think o%~ the property are not in fact the o%.mers. I will be happy to discuss this further with you and Mr. Green, and I think it will have to be approached somewhat on a case by case basis. Very truly yqurs, CAP: ih Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney League of Minnesota Cities April, 1992 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) TO: Mayors and Managers or Clerks FROM: Pete Solinger, President, League of Minnesota Cities and Councilmember, City of Rochester RE: 1992 Nominations for the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors The nominating committee asks your assistance in identifying candidates for the League's board of directors. If you are interested in placing your name before the nominating committee, please complete and return the enclosed nomination form and a brief resume of qualifications to: Lynda Woulfe League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 If possible, submit your suggestions by May 31. However, candidates are accepted until June 10, when the committee interviews all candidates. The nominating committee makes it a practice to confirm the fact that an individual is willing to serve before presenting his or her name to the annual meeting delegation. Board positions which expire in June, 1992 are: Gary Bastian, Mayor, Maplewood Carol Johnson, Councilmember, Minneapolis Frank Salerno, Mayor, Ely Leland Swanson, Mayor, Morris In addition to the four board seats, the offices of president, vice president and second vice president are elected annually. The nominating committee works with "Guidelines for Board Representation" which have been developed as a result of the deliberation of past nominating committees and board discussions. The guidelines appear on page 2. Also enclosed is a list of the present board members and officers of the League. The nominating committee will seriously consider all suggestions. If you have any questions concerning the League's board of directors or nominating process, please contact either Don Slater or Lynda Woulfe at the LMC offices, (612) 227-5600. #GUIDELINES FOR BOARD REPRESENTATION# 1. Geographic and Population Size Representation There has been a conscious effort to see that different parts of the state are represented on the board, as well as the different sizes of cities that are among the League's constituency. 2. Twin Cities/Greater Minnesota Balance The League of Minnesota Cities strives to maintain representational balance between greater Minnesota and the metropolitan area. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities president serves on the League of Minnesota Cities board ex-officio. A director's seat has been designated for both the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities and the Association of Small Cities. Persons interested in serving as the designee for the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities or the Minnesota Association of Small Cities should contact the president of the respective organization. The Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities will be solicited for its recommendation in 1992 and the Small Cities Association will be solicited beginning in 1993. 3. Elected/Appointed/Gender Balance Traditionally both elected and appointed municipal officials have participated in all aspects of the League's activities, including membership in the board of directors. No specific number of seats on the board reserved for either elected or appointed officials, but the League strives to have a majority of the board composed of elected officials. Furthermore, there has been some effort to provide an opportunity for a variety of appointed officials (e.g. clerks, city managers, attorneys, assessors, etc ) to serve on the board. · There has been a conscious effort to make board representation reflect the gender composition among officials of the membership. 4. Rotation of Membership In view of the fact the League has more than 790 members cities any individual who serves a full term on the board is not normally considered for another board term. However, city officials with board experience are often considered as potential officers, or for terms of less than one year. Nomination Form -- LMC Board of Directors PLEASE BE AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE. Name: Title: Address: City/Zip: Home Phone: l__l Work Phone: 1. Length of service in your present position: years 2. Other municipal position(s) you have held and the number of years: 3. Previous League experience (e.g. committees, conferences, affiliate organizations, etc.) 4. Attendance record as committee members: 5. Can you complete a full three-year term as a board member? You may also attach other materials (e.g. your resume) which may be useful to the Nominating Committee during their deliberations. PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY MAY 31 TO: LYNDA WOULFE, LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES, 183 UNIVERSITY AVE. E., ST. PAUL, MN 55101-2526. LMC Board of Directors and Officers June, 1991 - June, 1992 President: Pete Solinger, Councilmember, Rochester Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1992 Vice President: Larry Bakken, Mayor, Golden Valley Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1992 Second Vice President: Directors: Gary Bastian, Councilmember, Maplewood Elected by Membership: June 1989 Term expires: June 1992 Carol Johnson, Councilmember, Minneapolis Elected by Membership: June 1989 Term expires: June 1992 Frank Salerno, Mayor, Ely Appointed by Board of Directors: January 1991 Term expires: June 1992 (Appointed by I~C board of directors to fill remaining time on Pete Solinger's board term when Mr. Solinger was appointed vice president) Leland Swanson, Mayor, Morris Elected by Membership: June 1989 Term expires: June 1992 Bob Long, Councilmember, St. Paul Elected by Membership: June, 1990 Term expires: June, 1993 Greg Sparks, City Administrator, Worthington Elected by Membership: June, 1990 Term expires: June, 1993 Chuck Winkelman, Mayor, St. Cloud Elected by Membership: June, 1990 Term expires: June, 1993 Jerry Dulgar, City Manager, Crystal Appointed by the Board: March, 1991 Term expires: June, 1993 (Appointed by I~C board of directors to fill vacancy created by resignation of Jan Wiessner, Falcon Heights.) Directors: (cont'd) Desyl Peterson, City Attorney, Minnetonka Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1994 Todd Prafke, City Administrator, Bricelyn, Delavan, Easton, and Minnesota Lake Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1994 Betty Sindt, Councilmember, Lakeville Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1994 John Young, Jr., Councilmember, Hawley Elected by Membership: June, 1991 Term expires: June, 1994 Immediate Past President: Bob Benke, Mayor, New Brighton Term expires: June, 1992 Ex-Officio Seats: Donald Fraser, Mayor, Minneapolis Ex-officio seat because of his election as NLC's second vice president Term expires: December, 1994 NOTE: Due to the 1991 constitutional amendment concerning ex-officio seats, AMM's ex-officio seat was temporarily suspended until June, 1992. Effective June, 1992, AMM's president, Karen Anderson (Councilmember, Minnetonka), will fill the ex-officio seat. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF PA R T N E R S H I P JUNE 9-12, 1992 · BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CreES ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF P A R T N E R S H I P JUNE 9-12, 1992 · BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA PROGRAM SCHEDULE All conference events are at the Radisson Hotel South in Bloomington unless otherwise indicated. Tuesday, June 9, 1992 LMC Board of Directors Meeting 1:00 p.m. I.MC Conference Planning Committee Meeting 3:30 p.m. Special Kick-Off Event Get read)' to enjoy an urban surfin' part')' featuring Bob and the Beach- combers. Radisson Hotel South 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, Jtme 10, 1992 Welcome/Opening Session 9:00-10:15 a.m. 'Getting the Most fi-om Our Local Resources: Building Healtt~v Cities" David Morris. l'}h'eclor, lu~titute for l.ocal Sell Reliance Break 10:15-10:30 a.m. Concurrent Sessions I (choose one) 10:30-11:45 a.m. ESPECIALLY FOR POUCYMAKERS Public Relations for Cities What public relations is and how it's shaped Creating the desired image for )'our city Handling crisis situations-from public emergencies to potential city scandals Getting good press ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF .-Mmericans with Disabilities Act Overview and background: what it is. ~,'hen it goes into effect, how it's enforced hnpact on cities (as employers of disabled workers) Cities' invoh'ement regarding How the act will affect business in the conanaunitx, i.e. seam possibilities and how to handle them (emphasis on small businesses) KEEPING CURRENI Finance for the '90s: Alternative Sources of Revenue Franchise fees New taxes '{ i.e. sales, employmenl. hotel/motel) [/s('r fees for u(m-rc,,idcnts (cultural and r('('reali-i:,d, oily sen'ices, i.e. se~c~ alld water) How each of these alternatives works, their benefits, and how to determine applicability for your ciD' PARTNERSHIP AP~OACHES Cooperation Among Minnesota Cities: What's Happening and Why Ove~'iew of an LMC-commissioned -[tidy Results of stawwide smxey/selected miens'Jews Significant :-r~rlin~ abotlt cooperatixe cllorts-m~jor :::,~tixaiors/mi~jor biil'l'it'l'~ The context-past, present, future LOCAL ISSUES Dealing with Developers: How to Take Charge Importance of an economic develop- ment plan Developing a qrateh~--deciding where the citx should put its money Ensuring the development matches xot,r plan (through ordinances, setting development standards/criteria, monitoring agreement) ~,~en and how to say "no" without liability TABLE TOPICS Exhibitor's Luncheon General Session '~Fhe Power of Partnership" Marilyn Carlson NeLson, Vice Chair, Carlson Hold:~gs, lnc, Carlson Compa- nies Concurrent Sessions II (choose onel 2:30-3:30 p.m. ESPECIALLY FO~ :~C)LICYMAKERS Innovations in Communicating with Citizens New waD to use broadcast and print media New technologies to get your message across Approaches for reaching specialized audiences (communities of color, individuals with disabilities, new residents, i.e. <hools) PARTNERSHIP ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF Understanding and Valuing Diversity Changing demographics What cities need to know about diversi~' ,&sse~ing, understanding, and managing attitudes-~our own, those of your colleagues Working effectively cross-culturalh' with communities of color KEEPING CURR~NT Legislative Mandates: An Overview lfiqaat determines a mandate--city and state perspective , Discussion of differences Funding issues . How to resolve PARTNERSHIP AP~OACHES Cooperation Collaboration/Consolida- tion: Partnerships Among Cities The range of possibilities-from wideh' used to "cutting edge' Urban and rural case studies When cooperation doesn't make sense How to use this information back home LOCAL ISSUES Methods for Funding Infrastructure Improvement · Laws and conditions affecting infrastructure funding Making decisions on improvements Sources to fund improvements- traditional/nontradit.mal Success stones: dos and don'ts TABLE TC~CS Brenk 3:30-3:45 p.m. Concurrent Sessions III (choose one) 3:45-5:00 p.m. ESPECIALLY FOR POLICYMAKERS Dispute Resolution: A Tool for Effec- tive Negotiation Ovcrview of tile mccliation process Practical skills to use with officials, stall, and constituents Practicing skills throt,gh real-lit~ examples ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF Health Coverage: Influencing Future Policy Overview of current issues and trends Implications for cities Proposed changes at state and federal levels How to influence future legislation KEEPING CURRENT State Initiatives Impacting Cities: Committee on Reform and Efficiency (CORE) and Minnesota Milestones Description and pm'pose of each Desired outcomes Benefits Progress to date (actnal results) anti future plans PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES Influencing the Legislative Process How to obtain legislation specific to your communib' Tackling statewide issues not ad- dressed by LMC Understanding the difference between informing and persuading How to use both approaches LOCAL ISSUES Tackling Crime in the Neighborhoods Overview of trends Need for a muhi-faceted response inclutting prexention, protection, and enforcement Success stories TABLE TOPICS City might 6:30 p.m. This special celebration offers a family event at Metropolitan Sports Center complete with celebrities, sports figures, and music by tile Bloomington Medalist Band. Metropolitan Sports Center June 11, 1992 Partnership Breakfast "One Minnesota" Paul Olsen, President, Blandin Founda- tion (Co-sponsored b~ the Association of Small Cities) Concurrent Sessions IV (choose one) 9:00-10:30 a.m. ESPECIALLY FOR POUCYMAKERS How to be an Effective Councilmember · - Developing a x%ion for your local community Importance of long-range planning Commitment to doing your home- v,'Ol'k Self image and self preservation: survival skills Understanding your constituenLs ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF Recruitment, Selection, and Retention Basics The publioprivate myth Advertising for maximum response FLSA compliance and the effect of affirmative action Selection methods and pitfalls The council's role and accentuating the positive KEEPING CURRENT Pay Equity Brief overview and update Issues and implementation: Is it working? Cost and effect on arbitration PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES Collaboration/Cooperation/Consolida- tion: Partnerships Between Cities and Other Local Governments . The range of possibilities-from widely used to "cutting edge' ~. City-county, cit),'-township, and cig'- school case studies What works, what doesn't How to use this information back home LOCAL ISSUES--SMALL CITIES Growth Problems for Small Cities Key concerns/potential problems Implications and issues Strategies to respond Importance of leadership and planning (making tough decisions) TABLE TC~CS Bre~k 10:30-10:45 a.m. Concurrent Sessions V 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. ESPECIALLY FOR POUCYMAKERS Teamwork Between Council/Staff Role of conncil and staff · Characteristics of a successful team: how to make yours work Understanding )'our team players How to resolve conflict situations ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF Veterans' Preference Act: Hiring/ Promotion/Dismissal Background and requirements of act 100-point hiring/promotion systems How to test and screening tools Dismissal and demotion KEEPING CURRENT Protecting Water Resources or Paying for It Water resource planning--pt,blic and municipal requirements Current issues--wetlands, groundwa- ter contamination, impact of economic development Meeting standards for drinking water quality PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES EnWepreneurship: The Key to Your Community's Future : Developing an entrepreneurial perspective about resource generation Emerging role of cities in public- private ventures Breaking the bondage of scarcity and tax-based revenues The six "initial steps" to a resource- adequate future LOCAL ISSUES-SMALL CITIES Importance of Performance Appraisals in Small Cities Why they're so important Who should conduct them and how Legal issues Benefits and disciplinary matters Termination procedures TABLE TOPICS 1%ol Mayors Association/Mini. Conference Luncheon 12:30-2:00 p.m. "What's Good About Local Govern- ment" Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National League of Cities Concurrent Sessions VI (choose one) 2:15-3:30 p.m. ESPECIALLY FOR POUCYMAKERS Selecting and Retaining a Successful Manager for Your City How to select the right city manager Strategies to building a successful relationship Looking at tile long term--making retention a priority (Co-sponsored by Minnesota City Managers Association) ESPECIALLY FOR STAFF Understanding the Ramifications of Discrimination Meas of potential discrimination-- classes protected by state/federal law ~ Legal implications · Compliance requirements and penalties V(hal the elected official ncccls to knox~ and do Actions xou can take to reduce discrimination How unconscious biases affect decision making (Co-sponsored by Minnesota Women in Cit~' Government) KEEP1NO CURRENT Insurance Coverage: Update and Issues What's new and what's in the works at the League of Minnesota Cities lnsnr- ance Trust Current risk management issues PARTNERSHIP APPROACHES Developing A Partnership Approach to State-Local Relations ~ Changing from adversaries to collaborators Perspectives from specific state agencies that are making changes How cities can help LOCAL ISSUES-SMALL CITIES Joint Powers for small Cities , OvenSew of agreements allowed Characteristics of successful undertakings Succe~ stories--actual case studies from cities I~ighlighting what they did, benefits derived, obstacles overcome, administrative/legal issues TASTE TAlK 3:30-3:45 p.m. League Annual Meeting 3:45 p.m. LMC Reception and Banquet 6:30 p.m. Friday, June 12, 1992 Finale General Session 9:00-12:00 noon "Are We Speaking the Same Language? How Women and Men Communicate" Kelley On, President, KO Consultants/ Business Communications Parade of Flags Are you interested in pro- viding your city's flag to display at the League's 1992 Annual Conference? There will be a Parade of Flags the opening day and we'd like your city flag to be included. Flags should be mailed to Mark Thompson, 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, MN 55431. All flags wil[be returned to cities. If you have any questions regarding the Parade of Flags, please call Darlyne Lang at the League office. · Tuesday, June 9, 1992 LMC Board of Directors Meeting 1:00 p.m. LMC Conference Planning Committee Meeting 3:30 p.m. Special Kick-Off Event Bloomington Radisson South Get ready to enjoy an urban surfin' party featuring Bob and the Beachcombers 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 10, 1992 Welcome/Opening Session 9:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m. David Morris Director, Institute for Local Self Reliance "Getting the Most From Our Local Resources" Concurrent Sessions I (choose one) 10:30 - 11:45 am. Public Relations for Cities · Americans with Disabilities Act Finance for the '90s: Alternative Sources of Revenue Results of LMC Study of Cooperation · Dealing With Developers TABLE TOPICS Exhibitors' Luncheon 11:45 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. General Session 1:15- 2:15 p.m. Marilyn Carlson Nelson Vice Chair, Carlson Holdings, Inc., Carlson Compames "The Power o f Par~nershlp" Concurrent Sessions Il (Choose one) 2:30 - 3:30 p.m. Irmovations in Communicating with Citizens · Understanding andValuing Diversity Two State Initiatives: CORE/Minnesota Milestones Collaboration/Cooperation/Consolidation--Part I · Methods for Funding Infrastructure Improvement TABLE TOPICS Concurrent Sessions 1XI (Choose one) 3:45 - 5:00 p.m. Dispute Resolution: A Tool for an Effective Negotiation · Health Coverage Legislative Mandates - An Overview Public-Private Enterprises/Civic Entrcpreneurship · Crimc in thc Neighborhoods TABLE TOPICS CRy Night This special celebration offers a multi-cultural family event with a performance by the Bloomington Medalist Band 6:30 p.m. LMC Annual Conference Power of Partnership Preliminary Program Schedule Thursday, June 11, 1992 Partnership Breakfast 8:00 a.m. Concurrent Sessions IV (Choose one) 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. How to be an Effective Councilmember · Recruitment/Selection/Retention Basics Pay Equity Collaboration/Cooperation/Consolidation--Part II · Growth Problems for Small Cities TABLE TOPICS Concurrent Sessions V (Choose one) 10:45 am. - 12:15 p.m. Teamwork Between Council/Staff · Veterans Preference Hiring Protecting Water Resources Influencing the Legislative Process · performance Appraisal TABLE TOPICS Mayors Assoclatlon/~ni-Conference Luncheon 12:30 - 2:00 pm. Donald J. Borut Executive Director, National League of Cities "Perspectives From Washington" Concurrent Sessions VI (Choose one) 2:15 - 3:30 pm. Selecting and Maintaining a Successful City Manager · Discrimination Issues Insurance Coverage: Update and Issues State and Local Relations/Techniques for Dealing With State Agencies · Joint Powers for Small Cities TABLE TOPICS League Annual Meeting 3:45 p.m. LMC Reception and Banquet 6:30 p.m. Friday, June 12, 1992 Finale General Session "Are We Speaking thc Same Language? How Women and Men Communicate" 9:00 - 11:30 a.m. Kelly Oft President, K O Consultants, Business Communication KEY .. Especially for Policymakers · Especially for Staff Keeping Current Partnership Approaches · Local Issues TABLE TOPICS 1992 Annual Conference Registration Please type or print Name Nickname for badge Title City or organization Mailing address Sex F M City State Zip Telephone ( ) Family members attending (No registration fee BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE MEAL TICKETS. ORDER BELOW) Spouse full name Sex F M Child Age Child Age -'-] This is my first League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference. FULL CONFERENCE Jane 9-12, 1992 Registration includes admission to all sessions and conference activities, including tickets to: · Wednesday Exhibitors' Luncheon · Thursday Breakfast · Thursday Mayor's Luncheon · Thursday Banquet · Friday Coffee and Rolls MINI-CONFERENCE June 11, 1992 Registration includes admission to all Thursday sessions including tickets to: · Thursday Breakfast · Thursday Mayor's Luncheon NOTE: This registration DOES NOT include Thursday Banquet ticketa. ORDER BELOW. Early Registration (Postmarked by May 15, 1992) $180.00 Full Conference $. $ 80.00 Mini-Conference $. Advance Registration (Postmarked by May 29, 1992) $200.00 Full Conference $. $ 90.00 Mini-Conference $. On-Site Registration (at Conference) $220.00 Full Conference $. $I00.00 Mini-Conference $. Extra Meal Tickets $16.00 Wednesday Exhibitor's Lunch $. $ 8.50 Thursday Breakfast $. $17.00 Thursday Mayor's Luncheon $. $28.00 Thursday Banquet $. (NOTE: Mini-Conference registration DOES NOT INCLUDE THURSDAY BANQUET) City contact Daytime phone # Feel free to duplicate for multiple regtstrations~ L General lnfoFnmtlon~:.~"'~ Every delegate, guest, speaker, media representative, and other attendees MUST REGI~ with this form. Complete the form in full and return it along with full payment of all appm- priam conference registration fees to NOTE: No registration will be proc- essed without payment in full, or with- out an accompaaying city voucher or purchase order. II. Registration D~adlines May 15, 1992: Final postmark dead- linc for Early Registration. May 29, 1992: Final postmark dead- line for Advance Registration. HI. Conference Registration Cancellation Policies Your letter of registration cancellation must be postmarked no later than May 29, 1992 to qualify for a refund of registration fees. A registration cancellation is subj~t to a $25 cancellation fee. IV, Special Needs If you are disabled and require special services, or if you have special dlet~ry needs, please attach a written descrip- tion. ¥. Registration Comqrmatlon Pre-registrants will receive a postcard acknowledgment to be presented at the ADVANCE REG~TION desk fo~ quick registration. ' Vl. Registration Information For more information coumct: Cathy Dovidio (612) 227-5600. Make check payable and return with form to League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, MN $5101. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Joy Eischeid, Marilyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, City Manager Ed Shukle, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. MINUTES MOTION made by Eischeid, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 12, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION: LARRY HAUSKINS, 1749 BLUEBIRD LANE, WIOTA COMMONS, DOCK SITE 13480 - TRIMMING OF VEGETATION. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicants request for an after-the-fact permit to trim small trees, shrubs, sumac, vines and overgrowth on the public lands abutting his property. Staff recommended approval of the permit contingent upon the applicant removing the trimmings from Wiota Commons at their expense and in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Lands Permit. The applicant explained what vegetation was cut and commented that there was also garbage in the area which they picked-up. He questioned if he could also remove stumps which remained from larger trees which had been cut by someone else. His reason for trimming the area Was to improve his view of the lake and to clean- up the area. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of an after-the-fact Public Lands Permit to Larry Hauskins for trimming of vegetation contingent upon the applicant removing the trimmings from Wiota Commons at their expense, and in the future proper procedures be followed to obtain a Public Lands Permit. Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Skoglund, Asleson, Byrnes, Andersen, Eischeid, Mueller, Schmidt, and Ahrens. Casey was opposed. LMCD APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR AL & ALMA'S BOATS. No specific comments were made relating to this application. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 9, 1992 BUDGET DISCUSSION: IDEAS FOR 1993 PARK IMPROVEMENTS. Mueller suggested that if funds are cut for 1992, it is possible that the Lions, Rotary, Jaycees, or another local organization could help the City purchase, or construct benches and trash receptacles for the parks. Mueller offered to present a request to the Lions Club. The City Manager reviewed that formulation of the 1993 budget begins in May and is developed by August. Suggestions offered for park improvements in 1993 included: a wild flower garden for Cathy Bailey in Doone park, replace or remove the slide at Three Points Park, a flower box at Chester park, a planter at Avalon Park, a facilitator for the Nature Conservation program who could be a planner or a representative from the DNR or arboretum, any up-keep required to the Depot, Tree City USA, drinking fountain at Mound Bay Park, trees for Mound Bay Park and Swenson Park, and picnic tables. Casey questioned if it is possible that a block grant could be obtained for park improvements. The City Manager stated that an application needs to be made to the County, he could get the guidelines for the commission. The purpose of the program was briefly reviewed. After further discussion, it was determined that the Park Director would estimate costs for improving/redeveloping Three Points Park and getting trees and a picnic table for Philbrook Park. It was suggested that the flower garden in Doone Park is something that could maybe be worked into the adopt a green space program. ANNUAL PARKS TOUR DATE Fackler explained that two persons have a conflict with the originally scheduled date for the tour of Saturday, May 16, and he questioned if anyone objected to changing the date to Thursday evening, May 21. It was determined that May 21 would be an acceptable date for the tour, boarding at 5:45 p.m., departing at 6:00 p.m. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS - RESCHEDULE TOUR DATE. The Commission determined to tour the properties on the island only on Thursday evening, April 23. Everyone should meet at the Island Park Hall at 6:00 p.m. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 9, 1992 MINNESOTA PARK & RECREATION ASSOCIATION UPDATE. Skoglund commented that MPRA has scheduled two dates in 1992 for Park Board members to get together, the first will be a luncheon/bbq in August in Lakeville and the second is also during the day in November in Rochester. She will keep the commission apprised of these meetings and dates as they near. ADOPT A GREEN SPACE. Byrnes announced that the Adopt a Green Space committee has organized a 1992 Kick-Off meeting for Monday, April 20, 1992, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Eighteen agreements have been received so far for 1992. Byrnes explained that people may donate money to a flower fund by submitted a check to City Hall. City Council Representative's Report. Andrea Ahrens updated the commission that Hennepin County did not recommend allowing the parking of boat trailers on County Road 110 by Mound Bay Park. City Manaqer's Report. The Manager had no comments. Park Director's Report. Jim Fackler updated the commission on activities being performed by the Parks Department, including spring clean up of the parks and getting equipment ready for mowing, etc. Dock Inspector's Report. Tom McCaffrey updated the commission on the status of dock applications. He also requested the commissioners opinion on an interpretation of the city code relating to docks. For example, there are two abutting dock site holders sharing one dock, the Park Director's opinion is that if they are using only one site only a share fee should be charged, however, if they are using two sites, two full fees should be charged. The Commission agreed with this interpretation. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Byrnes to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES OF A MEETIN~ OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PL~'~NING COHMISSION April 13, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Bill Voss and Brian Johnson were absent and excused. The following persons were also present: Fred Schmudlach, Nancy & Gary Nordstrom, Charles Chase, Jr., and Dick Olexa. MINUTES The March 23, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus, to approve the March 1992 Planning Commission Minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 92-005: BLOCK 1, MOUND (addition). FRED SCHMUDLACH, 6248 RED OAK ROAD, LOT 7, TERRACE, PID ~14-117-24 32 0007. VARIANCE City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct an addition to an existing home. The current dwelling has a 1.9 foot side yard setback which requires a 4.1 foot variance. The property also has a detached garage that is 19.8 feet from the front property line, the garage requires a .2 foot variance. The PrOPosed addition is totally conforming. Staff recommended approval of the variance to construct the new addition subject to the following conditions: Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an updated survey identifying the ordinary high water line for Dutch Lake and further identifying the stairs and deck at the north end of the property. The existing structure and all improvements shall comply with all applicable building and fire code regulations. Mueller expressed a concern regarding drainage, and questioned if the drainage pattern should be shown on the plan. Koegler commented that he does not foresee a problem with drainage as a result of the addition. Mueller would like to see some insurance that the drainage pattern will not be changed to negatively affect the adjoining property owner. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Hanus referred to condition #2 relating to the compliance of building and fire codes. He feels this condition is written too strongly and questioned if this means the entire dwelling needs to be brought up to meet current codes. The Building official and city Planner emphasized that the conditions states "applicable" codes which gives the Building official the ability to use his discretion. The intent of having this condition is to ensure that the west wall of the existing structure will be modified to meet the requirements for a fire wall as it is less than 3 feet from the property line. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance request with the conditions listed, and that drainage be shown not to negatively affect the adjoining properties. Motion carried unanimously. Hanus commented that he still feels that condition #2 is written too strongly, however, he is in favor of the improvement and therefore voted in favor of the motion. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. CASE NO. 92-006: NANCY NORDSTROML 5308 THREE POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID ~13-117-24 21 0041. VARIANCE (decks). City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to add two decks to an existing structure. Both decks will measure 8' x 11' This case involves three variances, one recognizing an existing 2.3 foot side yard setback for the detached garage, one for the principal structure's 47 foot setback from the ordinary high water line (OHW), and the third involving the proposed deck on the north side of the property. The proposed deck is 39 feet from the OHW line. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback resulting in the request for a variance of 11 feet. Staff recommended approval of the proposed attached deck on the north side of the home as it seems to be a reasonable use of the property. The 8 foot encroachment represents a minimum size if a deck is to be allowed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 1.7 foot side yard variance, approval of the 3 foot lakeshore setback variance for the principal structure and approval of the 11 foot lakeshore setback for the purpose of constructing the proposed deck on the north side of the home. Approval is contingent upon the well on the north side of the property being sealed according to Health Department standards. 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Mueller commented that he does not see a hardship for allowing the deck on the lake side of the dwelling. It was noted that the houses on either side of the subject property currently have decks which are closer to the shoreline that what this deck is proposed to be. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance. Mueller questioned if there is a better design for the deck which could minimize the variance. The applicant commented that a walkway at the rear would be approximately 4 feet wide and she is only asking for another 4 feet more. The applicant stated that they purchased the property about one month ago and they plan to rent the dwelling. Koegler commented that the house already intrudes into the setback and he feels that to afford the owner reasonable use of the property the deck should be allowed. MOTION carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Jensen, Meyer, and Hanus. Mueller and Michael were opposed. Mueller and Michael commented that they opposed because they do not find a hardship to increase the nonconforming setback to the lakeside. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. CASE NO. 92-007: MARK HANUS, 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID ~19-117-23 24 0001. ~ARIANCE (addition). Commissioner Hanus removed himself from the board for this case. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request to add a 9' x 12' addition to the west side of the property. The addition will conform to required setbacks. In 1991 the applicant received a variance to construct an addition to an existing nonconforming structure. Under the conditions of approval a 1.79 foot side yard setback variance was granted for the principal structure and a 9.49 foot front yard setback variance was granted for an existing detached garage. According to the resolution, the garage is to be removed by May 28, 1993. Staff recommended approval of the 1.79 foot side yard setback variance and the 9.49 foot front yard garage setback variance upon the condition that the existing nonconforming detached garage be removed by May 28, 1993. 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of staff recommendation to approve the variance as requested. Motion carried unanlmousl¥. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 17, 1992. CASE NO. 92-008: CHARLES CHASE, JR., 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 13t 14t 15t BLOCK 2t THE HIGHLANDS~ PID ~23-117-24 44 0005. VARIANCE (boathouse). City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to reconstruct an existing boathouse. Reconstruction of the boathouse was originally started without a building permit. A variance is sought to allow construction of a boathouse measuring 12' x 22.8'. The proposed structure will have a total height of approximately 9.5 feet. Under current code, Mound requires a minimum floor elevation of 933.5 and a 4 foot lakeshore setback for accessory structures. The proposed building will meet required setbacks. The proposed structure has a floor elevation of 932.5 which is 1 foot under the elevation required in Section 330:15, Subd. 10 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The applicant is seeking a 1 foot variance from the required elevation of 933.5. Regulations from other nearby cities were reviewed. How much protection is necessary for this structure? A number of cities and the Watershed District recommend two feet above the 100 year flood elevation of 931.5, as does Mound. Staff recommended denial of the request for a one foot variance from the minimum floor elevation for the boathouse on property located at 5308 Grandview Blvd. If denial is sustained by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant can proceed with the project by raising the floor elevation to a minimum of 933.5 after obtaining required permits. Mueller commented that requiring a floor elevation of 933.5 is understandable for a habitable dwelling, but this is a water oriented structure, does this not constitute practical difficulty? It was suggested that if the variance is approved, the electrical and mechanical devices be placed above the 933.5. The proposed elevation is still one foot above the FEMA requirement. The applicant commented that the subject structure has been through two 100 year flood storms and has never had water in it. The Building Official referred to Mound City Code Section 330:15, Subd. 9. which states, "Neither the Building Inspector or the City Council shall approve any permit or establish a floor elevation 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 which is less than three feet above the 1965 high water level or the following designed flood elevations . . . 933.5 . . . on any lots in the City riparian to Lake Minnetonka." It was noted that Mound's ordinance was adopted prior to construction of the Gray's Bay Dam. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the i foot variance in elevation recognizing that the structure use is other than habitable and it is an accessory use versus a principal use. Approval is contingent upon the electrical and mechanical devices being located above the 933.5 elevation. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Meyer, Hanus and Mueller. Those opposed were: Weiland, Jensen and Michael. Jensen and Michael commented that they feel the language in the ordinance is too strongly written to not deny the request. Weiland agreed, he also commented that he opposes because a building permit should have been obtained prior to commencing work on the structure. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 28, 1992. 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. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to change a property line that was previously established by a minor subdivision. The proposed subdivision will shift the property line separating lots one'and two 80 feet to the south. Lot one will have an area of 19,500 square feet and lot 2 will have an area of 28,600 square feet. This history of the subdivisions approved for this property was reviewed. The City Engineer reviewed the application and expressed a concern with the existing watermain that crosses the southerly parcel. An easement is not reflected on the survey. If an easement document does exist the applicant should furnish the City with a copy, if the document does not exists, he recommends that one be dedicated as part of the subdivision approval. The City Planner addressed a potential long term plan of extending Halstead Avenue through the proposed southern parcel. It appears that two lots could be created out of what is now lot 2, both of which would exceed 10,000 square feet in area. 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a variance from the requirements of Section 330:20 (A) 2 of the Mound Code of Ordinances to allow the subject request to be processed as a minor subdivision. It is further recommended that a variance be granted for lot 2 which does not have frontage on a public street and that the subdivision of lots 1 and 2 be approved in accordance with the survey dated 2/13/92 subject to the following condition: The applicant shall supply a sketch plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor identifying the potential extension of Halstead Avenue in an alignment consistent with the platted location of the street in the Halsted View Subdivision. If the corresponding land area lying between the northerly line of the right-of-way and the southerly line of lot 1 does not equal or exceed 10,000 square feet, the property line dividing lots 1 and 2 shall be shifted northward to add the appropriate property to proposed lot 2. The aforementioned sketch plan shall be submitted prior to the filing of the subdivision with Hennepin County. The Owner/applicant shall furnish documents, such as title opinion or certificate of title, sufficient to prepare a recordable easement for the existing City watermain. Upon execution of an easement document, the owner/applicant shall have an easement placed of record with Hennepin County. The City shall be furnished a copy of the recorded document. Weiland questioned if the sewer and water assessments were current. Staff will verify prior to the Council meeting. Mueller expressed a concern relating the southerly lot not having any frontage on an improved public right-of-way. The applicant confirmed that he has not researched his abstract for the water easement yet. Meyer expressed a concern for the applicant relating to the fees involved to file the easement document. Koegler commented that the City Engineer can create an easement agreement by using the easement description for the sanitary sewer from an existing Title Opinion or Certificate of Title. The applicant will only have marginal filing fees, the city will prepare the documents if the description is provided to use. The City is trying to complete this task as inexpensively as possible for all parties. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 1992 MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of staff recommendation for approval including all conditions. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Weiland, Meyer, Hanus, Jensen, and Michael. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that a new lot is being created which does not front on an improved public right-of-way and he is not in favor of creating new nonconforming lots. He compared this request to that of creating bottleneck lots and questioned if they are not similar. This request will be heard by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1992. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Jensen reviewed highlights of the March 24th Council meeting and the agenda for the April 14th meeting. It was suggested that a thank you letter be written to the City of Minnetrista for allowing Mound residents to use their compost site. Clapsaddle commented on the planning workshop attended by Mueller, Sutherland, and himself and stated it was advised that Planning Commissioner's have the opportunity look further that the immediate sphere for consultation if it is needed. MOTION made adjourn the unanimously. by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 7