Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1992-07-28
CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMF. NT- 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 ~G 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14, 1992 REGULAR MEETING. PG. 2254-2264 CONTINUED PUBLIC HSARIN~: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE (SECTION 319). PG. 2265-2337 CASE #92-0~9: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0087. REQUSST: VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION· PG. 2338-2356 CASE #92-032: KIM & MICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT 4, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S & L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0033. REQUSST: FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE. CASS #92-033: PG. 2357-2364 REQUEST: WENDY BRADY, 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28, BLOCK 7 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 31 0055. SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION. PG. 2365-2379 CASE #92-034: SONCOR INVESTMENTS, 1943 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 17 & PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0041· REQUEST: LOT AREA VARIANCE. PG. 2380-2394 2250 CASE ~92-035; LEONARD KOEHNEN, 2151 CEDAR LANE, LOT 26 & 1/2 OF 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117- 24 32 0021. REQUEST: SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES. CASE #92-036~ WILLIAMS HIBBS, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 42 0014. REQUEST: VARIANCE - REPAIR FOUNDATION. 10. CASE #92-038: PG. 2395-2409 PG. 2410-2422 DANIEL T. BALLOY, 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0021. REQUEST: VARIANCE - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 11. CASE #92-039: PG. 2423-2436 ALLAN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28, 29 & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID #19-117-23 33 0106. REQUEST: VARIANCE - ADDITION. 12. CASE #92-041: 13. 14. 15. 16. PG. 2437-2451 17. DAVID & DIANE BARTELS, 5246 PIPER ROAD, LOT 28, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #25-117- 24 21 0100. REQUEST: RECOGNITION OF EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE - ADDITION. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PG. 2452-2468 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION: REQUEST FOR STAIRWAY/WALKWAY, CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42314. PG. 2469-2485 UNPAID LATE DOCK LICENSE FEE, CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DOCK SITE #42314. PG. 2486-2496 PUBLIC LANDS MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUEST TO REPLACE A STAIRWAY, BILL SCHUMER, 2885 CAMBRIDGE LANE, DOCK SITE #51435. PG. 2497-2509 TAX FORFEIT LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR SALE PG. 2510-2514 1) PID #13-117-24 12 0067, LOT 1, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD 2) PID #13-117-24 12 0069, LOT 15, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD 3) PID #19-117-23 32 0128, LOT 26, BLOCK 11, WYCHWOOD 2251 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL DOCK APPLICATION FOR HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT FOR 1992 CDBG PROGRAM (YEAR XVIII). RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT RE: SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. PAYMENT OF BILLS. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS PG. 2516-2519 PG. 2520-2548 PG. 2549 PG. 2550-2557 ae B® De Ee Fe He June 1992 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. PG. 2558-2559 LMCD mailings. PG. 2560-2582 Letter of resignation from Eldo Schmidt, Chair, Mound HRA. Eldo has dedicated many years of service to the City of Mound beginning in 1964 as a Planning Commissioner and then as a City Councilmember. He took office at the HRA in 1973 and has served there ever since. Please begin thinking about this vacancy and see if there are some individuals that may be suitable for this position. PG. 2583 Letter dated July 17, 1992, from John Cameron, City Engineer re: explanation of final payment request on 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of July 9, 1992. PG. 2584 PG. 2585-2593 Planning Commission Minutes of July 13, 1992. PG. 2594-2603 Letter from Ridgeview Medical Center re: efforts of Officer Dan Niccum in assisting with Basic Life Support on a recent case. PG. 2604 Letter from the National League of Cities regarding key federal issues that will be coming before Congress before its scheduled adjournment. PG. 2605-2609 City softball game has been rescheduled to Saturday, August 15, 1992, Philbrook Park, 2 P.M. Let's see if we can put together a "respectable,, team to take on the Fire Department. 2252 Jo We have scheduled a reception for Officer Ron Bostrom who is retiring from the City effective September 1, 1992. It is scheduled for Monday, August 31, 1992, at 3 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Please mark your calendar to attend and wish Ron well as be begins his retirement. We have received notice from the National League of Cities that the 69th Annual Congress of Cities Conference will be held November 28 - December 2, 1992, in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of this years conference is "Avenues and Bridges - Great Ideas for Community Leadership,,. Please let Fran know before September 1st if you are interested in attending. Notice from the Regional Transit Board of a meeting to share the local impacts of the RTB's "Vision in Transit" - Tuesday, August 11, 1992, 7:30 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., Best Western/Hotel Seville, 8151 Bridge Road, Bloomington. Please let Fran know if you are interested in attending. PG. 2610 2253 July 14, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 14v 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 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 and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Herb Wolner, Claudia Baxter, Dorothy Davis, Jack Bolke, Mark Hanus, Darlene Pool, Don Jerdee, Jerry Gibbs, John Eccles, Jean Sween, and Jerry Winter. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the June 23, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted, with the following correction: Page 2041, Motion on Item 1.10 should read as follows: "MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to approve the above items 1-6 and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval and bring it back to the next meeting for formal approval.,, .... The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council moved Item #10 up on the Agenda. 1.1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT OF PROPERTY FROM MSC PROPERTIES (LITTLE LEAGUE FIELDS) The Mayor explained that Herb Wolner has offered to donate the Little League Fields to the City of Mound. In return he would like the City to grant a 99 year lease to the Little League for the use of the fields. This will save the Little League about $5,000 in taxes each year which they can use for equipment, etc. The Council thanked Mr. Wolner and the Wolner family for the donation. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-83 RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT OF PROPERTY FROM MSC PROPERTIES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 117 July 14, 1992 1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~92-012: DAKOTA RAIL, INC., 2290 COMMERCE BLVD., PID ~13-117-24 33 0066, PRELIMINARY PL~T "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION" (NORWEST BANK PROPERTY) The City Planner explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval. He would like the following added to the proposed resolution: lA. No additional access from CSAH 110 or CSAH 15 will be permitted by Hennepin County. lB. Any proposed construction within County right-of-way shall require an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. Proposed construction includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. All areas within County right-of-way disturbed by construction shall be restored by the developer/property owner. lC. The land title shall be approved by the City Attorney. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. The The Council asked that a ID. regarding the required number of parking spaces, be added to the proposed resolution. The fourth Whereas would then read as follows: "WHEREAS, the Mound Advisory Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat." The Council discussed the difference in the number of parking spaces required .by the Zoning Ordinance and the number of parking spaces required by the Central Business District Parking Program. The City Attorney suggested that he add some language similar to the following for iD: "The subdivision is being approved with the express understanding that the property as currently used is required to have 7 parking spaces. The plat provides 5 parking spaces and 2 parking spaces be satisfied by the use of municipal parking facilities, as currently used for banking purposes. If the property is used for retail purposes, the need for public parking facilities will increase." The Council agreed that some appropriate language, similar to the above be added to the proposed resolution to make the resolution more clear on the parking requirements. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #92-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF DAKOTA RAIL FIRST ADDITION (2290 COMMERCE BLVD. - NORWEST BANK), P & 118 July 14, 1992 CASE #92-012 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~92-021, STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER, 4908 EDGEWATER DRIVE, VACATE A FIRE LANE. The Building Official reported that the Park & Open Space Commission recommended that this request be tabled until they complete their Nature Conservation Area Study and the use of the property is defined. The vote was 7 in favor with 2 abstentions. There was a motion at the Planning Commission to approve the vacation, but that failed on a 3 to 6 vote. Claudla Baxter, 4908 Edgewater Dr., the applicant, asked that the Council approve the vacation. Her reasons were as follows: 1) They would like to put an addition on their house and need this property to meet setbacks; 2) the land is currently being maintained by them and the neighbors and the access to the lake is poor. The city Clerk explained that a response has been received from the DNR on the proposed vacation. They are not against the vacation but would encourage the Council to come up with an alternate access if this one is vacated. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in opposition to the vacation: Dorothy Davis - 4883 Edgewater Drive, stated that Chris Furlong and Lorraine Painter were also against the vacation. Darlene Pool - 4901 Edgewater Drive, was opposed to the vacation. Brian Harpestad - 4925 Edgewater Drive. Mr. Harpestad presented pictures of the access Lucille Wood - 4895 Edgewater Drive, submitted a letter in opposition to the vacation. Ms. Baxter stated she has lived here 2 1/2 years and there are numerous other accesses in the area. She also stated the City does not maintain the access. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council looked at an overhead of the area and the accesses. The Mayor read a portion of Mn. Statute 412.851 (Vacation of Streets). "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the 119 July 14, 1992 interest of the public to do so" ..... Councilmembers Jessen and Jensen agreed that this would not be in the public interest. Councilmember Smith stated he would like to have the deck that appears to be on the access removed and make the area safe for people to use. He felt maybe this could be tabled until after the report from the Park Commission is completed. Councilmember Ahrens wanted to wait until the Park Commission finished their Nature Conservation Areas before dealing with these accesses (fire lanes). The fire lanes are on the low end of the priority list. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to deny the request for a vacation of a 10 foot wide right-of-way between Lots 13 & 14, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood (4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive), P & Z Case #92-021). The vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens and Smith voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 PUBLIC HEARING= CASE ~92-022= JERRY WINTER, 2343 COMMERCR BLVD., PART OF LOTS 3 & 4, AUDITOR,S SUBD. ~167, PID #14-117 24 44 0004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS The City Planner explained that this is a request to operate a light assembly business in the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. The business, known as Advantage Products, will assemble small pest control tools and will initially employ 2 people. The Planning Commission recommended approval with certain conditions listed in the proposed resolution. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor closed the public hearing. The Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-79 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A LIGHT ASSEMBLY BUSINESS IN THE B-1 ZONE AT 2343 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 3, METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, AUDITOR'S SUBD. 167, PID #14-117-24 44 0004, P & Z CASE #92-022 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE ~92-019:GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4t REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORESt PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official explained that this was reviewed at the June 120 July 14, 1992 23, 1992, Council Meeting, but because the setbacks were not consistent with the original review by the Planning Commission, it was referred back to the Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted 2 options for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommendation is for approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot and the addition of a deck is a reasonable use of the property. The applicant does have the option of an on-grade detached deck from the dwelling but wanted to have the deck conveniently located to their existing patio doors. The applicant was on vacation and not able to attend the meeting. The applicant asked if the Council was going to deny Option A, they would appreciate tabling a decision until they can be appear before the Council. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 4 on a motion for denial, so there was no recommendation. The Council discussed alternatives that the Planning looked at and minimums to alleviate the hardship. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to table Case #92- 019, to a future meeting when the applicant can be present (either July 28 or August 11). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~92-030: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, 8UBD. OF LOTS i & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0035, VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS The Planner presented the proposed resolution that was prepared as per Council direction at the last meeting. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME ON LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13- 117-24 41 0035, (2028 ARBOR LANE) P & Z CASE #92-030 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE ~92-031: JOHN & CHRISTINE GABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19 AND PT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID ~30-117-23 22 0009, VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS The Planner presented the proposed resolution that was prepared as per Council direction at the last meeting. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: 121 July 14, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-81 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO aLLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS ON LOT 19 AND 18 EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FRONT AND REAR, BLOCK 1, DEVON, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT i FOOT OF ROANOK~ ACCESS, PID ~30-117-23 22 0009, (4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE), P & Z CASE ~92-031 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd., asked to be removed from the Central Business Parking Program as of June 30, 1992, in a letter in the information part of the packet. In that letter the Meisel's stated they feel they are unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking. A letter from the City Manager explained that the City would like to have time to review the ramifications and impact on the CBD program. Councilmember Smith stated the question, " Do they have a right to do what they want to with their property, which they own or does the City have control of that property?" The Meisels stated they do not want to wait 2 months for an answer. Pat Meisel - asked that they be allowed to pull out of the CBD Parking Program. They have owned the property for 3 years and not signed anything including them in the CBD program. The business climate has changed. The Council asked that the Staff look at this and get more information on this from the City's perspective and bring this back to the August 11th Meeting. 1.9 REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - RECONFIGURATION OF STAIR PLAN ON COMMONS PROPERTY AT 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE FOR MIKE AND DIANE ROY The Building Official stated that the applicant has submitted a revised plan for the stairway. The plan is more tailored to the slope of the land. The original design projected outward from the slope and the applicant has stated it is difficult to comply with the maximum 8" rise and minimum run requirement of the code. He reported that the staff recommends approval of the new plan consistent with Resolution #92-61. 122 July 14, 1992 Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-82 RESOLUTION TO A~END RESOLUTION #92-61 APPROVING THE REVISED PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 457? ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, DEVON, DOCK SITE %41140 Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in favor. 1.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND RONALD BOSTROM, POLICE OFFICER RETIREMENT EARLY The City Manager explained that Police Officer Ronald Bostrom has submitted his resignation and an agreement has been reached regarding his early retirement, effective August 31, 1992. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-84 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF OFFICER RONALD D. BOSTROMAND APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING EARLY RETIREMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LOIS SANDQUIST, FINANCE DEPT. RE: EARLY RETIREMENT The City Manager explained that Utility Billing Clerk Lois Sandquist has submitted her resignation and an agreement as been reached regarding her early retirement, effective December 1, 1992. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-85 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF LOIS SANDQUISTAND APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING EARLY RETIREMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. REGARDING MOUND VISIONS PROJECT The City Manager explained that in order to continue to receive 123 July 14, 1992 CDBG monies for the Mound Visions program, the City sought RFQ (Requests for Qualifications). There were two responses; one from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. and the other from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. The recommendation is that Hoisington Koegler continue to provide services for the Mound Visions program. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-86 RESOLUTION APPROVING HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING PROJECT (MOUND VISIONS) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST OF $1,105.79 - 1991 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT The City Manager reported that the City Engineer recommended approval of the final payment request from LaTour Construction for the 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project. The Mayor asked that a report be submitted from the Water and Sewer Superintendent, Greg Skinner, explaining any problems that the City had with the project causing a final payment to be made 7 months into 1992. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a final payment request from LaTour Construction, Inc, in the amount of $1,105.79 for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING BURNING PERMITS The City Clerk explained that the MPCA has contacted the City and stated the ordinance relating to burning permits needed to be updated and the person authorized to issue permits needed to be changed to the present Fire Chief. Councilmember Jensen stated she could not vote in favor of this because she does not believe any open burning permits should be issued in this community for the burning of leaves or brush and trees. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #58-1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. $ OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BURNING RESTRICTIONS - BURNING PERMITS 124 July 14, 1992 REQUIRED The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.15 Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-87 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FIRE CHIEF, DON BRYCEv AS THE DESIGNATED PERSON TO ISSUE BURNING PERMITS The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.16 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $383,178.94, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD-ON ITEMS UPDATE- DEAN HANUS CASE The City Manager gave an update on the case. Mr. Hanus was denied the Maintenance Permit or a Public Lands Permit to retain a boathouse and deck on Commons abutting his property and he had until June 10, 1992, to remove the deck and boathouse and he has not done so. The City commenced both criminal and civil action against Mr. Hanus and the complaint was signed by the Building Official a week ago (last Wednesday) and was filed with the court. Mr. Hanus will have to make a court appearance on the criminal side. The civil complaint was prepared and in the meantime a letter was received from Mr. Hanus indicating that he was going to begin disassembling the deck and it would probably take 30 days to complete. Then the City Attorney tried to contact Mr. Hanus and his attorney. The City then received a Complaint late last Friday from Mr. Hanus' attorney indicating they were filing a suit against the City of Mound for this issue. On Monday, July 13, 1992, the City Manager received a letter from Mr. Hanus indicating that we have not been able to communicate effectively and that Hanus will be starting to disassemble the deck and he will have it done in 30 days. The City Manager stated the City is confused as to what Mr. Hanus is doing. Therefore, the City is proceeding as if we have a lawsuit. The Council discussed the fact the Mr. Hanus did not mention the boathouse in his communications. He did say in the first communication that he was going to comply with the resolution. The City Attorney reiterated the City Manager's description of the 125 July 14, 1992 action taken. The City Attorney tried to call Mr. Hanus and his attorney several times, with no response from them. The City Attorney did speak with Mr. Hanus' attorney July 13, 1992, and his attorney informed him that someone else in his office was handling the case and that Mr. Hanus' attorney was not sure what was happening. The City Attorney reported that at this point the City has filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Hanus and Mr. Hanus has filed a civil complaint against the City. The City Attorney will take the documents that have been prepared and put them in the form of an answer, but basically the City's claim will remain the same which is to ask for a mandatory injunction to have the encroachment on the public property removed and the property returned to the City. He will keep the City informed on the status of this item as things unfold. EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE Councilmember Smith asked their be direction that the Staff talk to the Planning Commission about bringing up the Exterior Maintenance Ordinance again. He stated he believed that this ordinance was pretty well intact and could be considered soon. He would like to see that come forward. The Council stated they did not want this tied to the Rental Licensing Ordinance, but felt they need to address the owner occupied property also in the very near future. The Council discussed wanting all the present ordinances that are on the books enforced to deal with nuisances, derelict autos, etc. By consensus, the Council asked the Planning Commission to take up the Exterior Maintenance Ordinance in a timely manner. LAKE AREA CITIES COOPERATION STUDY The City Manager passed out a paper entitled, "Municipal Service Delivery Options in the Lake Minnetonka Area", written by Jim Hurm, City Administrator of Shorewood. He explained that the lake area communities have been meeting on this topic for several months and recently some of the mayors attended and were brought up to speed. The outcome of that meeting was that all felt a study should be pursued and further exploration of the topic be carried out. He will keep the Council updated as the study proceeds. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU~ A. June 1992 Department Head Monthly Reports. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for June 1992. 126 July 14, 1992 Ce LMCD Mailings. Please note the invitation to attend the Public Official's Lake Tour & Luncheon to be held, Saturday, August 1, 1992, beginning at 11 A.M. at the Lafayette Club dock. Please let Fran know by July 24, 1992, if you and/or your guest will be attending. D. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 11, 1992. E. Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1992. F. Thank you note from the Mound City Days Committee for 1992. Go Invitation to attend the seventh annual "Outreach Breakfast" of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 1992, 7:30 A.M. at the Radisson Ridgedale. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend. Letter dated June 17, 1992, from Pat & Paul Meisel of Mound, who are formally requesting that their properties in the Mound Central Business District (CBD) parking program be removed from the CBD parking program effective June 30, 1992. I responded to Meisels in a letter dated July 6, 1992. This is also attached. I indicated to them that City Staff would be bringing this letter to the attention of the City Council and that Staff would ask that the Council allow the Staff some time to completely review the ramifications and impact of this request on the future of the CBD program. There is ample time to do this since we do not start gearing up the maintenance program until Fall. Do you agree with Staff's recommendation? MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 127 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF /% 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. CITX,' of X IOt 'ND July 23, 1992 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~. FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE As you know, at the April 28, 1992 City Council meeting a public hearing was held on the proposed rental housing ordinance and licensing ordinances recommended to you by the Planning Commission. As you recall, there were questions raised with regard to the implementation of the ordinance. It was suggested that the hearing be continued until the June 23, 1992 meeting at which time information would be presented about how to implement these ordinances. At the June 23rd continued public hearing, Jon Sutherland, Building Official and myself presented an implementation plan on how to enforce the proposed ordinance. As stated in a memo attached dated June 18, 1992, a great deal of analysis had been done to determine what would be the appropriate fees to cover the costs of housing inspection and related costs associated with implementing these ordinances. Also stated in that memo was the fact that we had looked at a number of approaches in which to enforce the ordinances. Due to so much uncertainty with regard to the actual inspections, associated costs and the basic thesis of trying to make the ordinance self sustaining, we felt that it would be appropriate to solicit proposals from housing inspectors who would provide housing inspections on a CONSULTANT BASIS. As we stated at the June 23rd public hearing, we advertised for a consultant housing inspector. We received 80+ calls or written communications asking for a Request for Proposal (RFP). We received by the deadline date 6 proposals in response to our RFP. In the RFP we explained that we were "testing the waters" to try to determine the cost of implementing and enforcing the proposed ordinances. printed on recycled paper Rental Housing Ordinance Memo July 24, 1992 Page 2 Prior to sending out the RFP we discussed some estimated fees that should be charged for each type of rental unit. We also looked at the estimated expenses involved with the inspector, clerical support and administration. At the June 23rd meeting, we discussed a proposed estimate of costs based upon fees collected for each type of rental unit. The total estimated revenue was equal to $31,125. Estimated expenses were at $28,882. This resulted in a revenue over expenditures of $2,243 using a 50% ratio. In other words, the inspector charging for his or her fee at 50% of whatever the revenue generated from the housing inspections. Based upon this method the program was shown to be self-supporting. As we told you on June 23rd, we received 6 responses to the RFP. The percentage of revenue varied from one candidate to another, but the range was 49% of revenue generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $20 per hour (for additional inspections) and $12 an hour for clerical support, to 100% of revenues generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $25 per hour (additional inspections) and $10 for clerical support. It is still the building official's and my opinion that the consultant housing inspector would be the approach to take in implementing this program. Again, this is not a full time city employee, but an inspector hired on a contractual basis for a year at a time. The contract would be up for review and the City could change the inspector or any other facet of the program. At the June 23rd public hearing, there was a concern expressed by the City Council and staff that if the ordinance is adopted within the near future, when should it become effective? When should the "clock" start? After review of this question city staff would suggest that the ordinance go into effect on January 1, 1993. This would allow notification to the rental property owners of the details of the ordinance and that they are going to be required to be licensed and that they would have a certain period of time in which to complete the application process including payment of fees. A letter could be sent to all rental property owners on or about October 1, 1992 stating the background of the ordinance, providing a summary copy of it and discussing the licensing procedures which would include payment of licensing fees. The letter could further state that the fees would be due October 31, 1992. If fees were not collected by October 31, 1992, a second letter could be sent out indicating that no response had been sent back and that the city was again asking the property owner to apply for the license and make payment on or before November 30, 1992. To carry this further, if the licensing application was not received with payment on or before November 30, 1992, a third Rental Housing Ordinance Memo July 24, 1992 Page 3 letter could be sent indicating that the ordinance goes into effect January 1, 1993, and that if the property owner did not comply with the ordinance, this would be a violation and the City would have to commence legal action. I discussed this matter with Curt Pearson, city attorney, he advised me that the City has no authority to put assessments on property owner's taxes with regard to this type of ordinance. Legal action would be required just as any other legal action would be required as it pertains to violations of city ordinances. Certainly, the City would be having to spend general fund monies to prosecute violators and it would be unlikely if we could recoup all of our costs in trying to go after violators of the ordinances. Jon Sutherland, Building Official and myself discussed the administrative costs with regard to the sending out of letters and follow up. John Norman, Finance Director, has indicated that the estimated $2,243 in revenue over expenses would have to be added to the administrative expenses. His rationale is that $7500 will not cover costs associated with printing of forms, processing of applications, sending out letters, etc. We are not suggesting increasing the fees, however, we want to make you aware that the program, as its being proposed, will not be a "money maker". Thus, you could adjust the $7500 under administration expenses referenced in the June 18th memo to $9743, or for rounding purposes $9700. One of the other items that was discussed at the public hearing on June 23rd was a summary ordinance taking into account changes that were proposed per the building official at the June 23rd public hearing. I am expecting Curt to have that summary ordinance ready for Tuesday evening. This memo provides you with a recap of the issue to date. Hopefully, we have answered your questions. If there is any further information that you desire, please do not hesitate to contact me. ES:is 1.2 June 23, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1992 TO RENT HOUSING PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE The City Manager stated that after the April 28th Meeting an RFP was developed. Before the RFP was sent out, the City Manager and the Building Official worked out the estimated revenue/suggested fees and the estimated expenses/rates - total estimated revenue is $31,125, total estimated expenses are $28,882. Based on these estimates, the program would pay for itself. To this, it is recommended that the City add a $30.00/per hour additional inspection fee or $15.00/half hour minimum. This would be the charge per visit after the initial visit and one follow-up visit. The ad was placed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and a number of other professional publications. Eighty plus individuals or firms requested the RFP. 6 responses were received. No interviews have been held at this point. The Building Official explained that there are "built in deficiencies exempt" that were not dealt with at the Planning Commission. They are as follows: 1. Ceiling Height. 2. Floor Area. - This does not apply in Mound. 3. Natural Light and Ventilation. He stated he has obtained some language from Brooklyn Park that should be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Jensen corrected Section 319:15, Subd. 4 and 14 as follows: Subd. 4. Responsibility for Storage and Disposal of Garbago and Rubbish. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, ^- ........ 9, two family town homes or a multiple family dwelling shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of rubbish or 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 Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 14.Maintenance of Driving and Parking Area~. The owner of a rcnta! ~"~~ ~ .... ~-~ .... ~ .... ~ ~ .... ~_~. tc'Jn homc 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. The Council agreed. The City Attorney asked that after the changes are made, they be incorporated into the ordinance and then summary ordinances can be prepared for publication. June 23, 1992 The Council discussed time-lines as to when licenses should be due, i.e. January 1, of each year or another time. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Phil Hasch, 4808 Northern Road, owner of rental property. Property owners should have reDresentation. Asked if there weren't other laws that could govern this. The City Attorney answered no. Dorothy Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd., owner of rental property. Wanted to see the proposed ordinances. She was told they are available at City Hall. Bill Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd., owner of rental property. Stated he felt this was discriminating against landlords. Felt all property should have to observe the same standards. Doesn't feel this ordinance is necessary for him. Expressed concerns about taxes and recycling. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to continue the public hearing to the July 28th Meeting, in order to have the changes incorporated into the ordinances and summary ordinances prepared. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. June 18, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: At the April 28, 1992 City Council meeting a public hearing was held on the proposed rental housing ordinance and licensing ordinances recommended to you by the Planning Commission. As you recall, there were questions raised with regard to the implementation of the ordinance. It was suggested that the hearing be continued until the June 23, 1992 meeting, at which time information would be presented about how to implement these ordinances. A great deal of analysis has been done to determine what would be the appropriate fees to cover the costs of housing inspection and related costs associated with implementing the ordinances. We both have looked at various approaches in which to enforce the ordinances. Based. upon the uncertainty that is involved with inspections, associated costs and the basic thesis of trying to make these ordinances self sustaining, i.e., pay for themselves, etc., we felt it be appropriate that we solicit proposals from housing inspectors who would provide housing inspection on a consultant basis. We advertised for consultant housing inspectors in a number of publications. We used the Minneapolis Star Tribune and other professional organizations who would have members that would have an interest in this subject. We received many telephone calls asking about the consultant inspector. Eighty plus individuals or firms requested that we send the RFP to them. We received, by the deadline date, six proposals in response to our RFP. We explained in the RFP that we are "testing the waters" to try to determine the costs of implementing and enforcing the ordinances. Prior to us sending out the RFP, we discussed some estimated fees that should be charged for each type of rental unit. We also looked at the estimated expenses involved with the inspector, clerical support and administration. The following is a listing of printed on recycled paper the revenue/suggested fees and estimated expenses/rates: Revenue/Suqqested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 $31,125 Estimated Expenses/Rates: SECRETARY: 388 HOURS @ A RATE OF $15/HR. ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR @ 50% OF REVENUE TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES Revenue Less Expenses @ 50% Ratio $ 5,820 7,500 15,562 $28,882 $ 2,243 The fees suggested above are reasonable fees based upon discussions with other communities who have similar ordinances. As you can see, based upon those fees, the total estimated revenue is $31,125. The estimated expenses/rates are based upon a consultant housing inspector being paid as a percentage of the total revenue collected. Our estimate prior to issuing the RFP was 50%. The administrative expenses involved, forms and other costs related to administration is $7,500. Clerical support was based upon a $15 an hour rate. As you can see, based upon this estimate of revenue/suggested fees and estimated expenses/rates the program will pay for itself. As we indicated above, we received six responses to the RFP. The percentage of revenues varies from one candidate proposing that 49% of revenue generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $20 per hour (for additional inspections) and $12 an hour for clerical support, to 100% of revenues generated by fees collected (initial and follow up inspections) $25 per hour (additional inspections) and $10 per hour for clerical support. In an effort to compare the minimum costs of inspection based upon the lowest proposal to the maximum cost of inspection based upon the highest proposal, you have the following: LOWEST PROPOSAL Revenue/Suggested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE Estimated Expenses/Rates SECRETARY 388 HOURS AT A RATE OF $12/HR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR 49% OF REVENUE TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 $31,125 $ 4,656 7,500 15,251 $27,407 Revenue Less Expenses at 49% Ratio $ 3,718 HIGHEST PROPOSAL Revenue/Suggested Fees: SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TRIPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY PER BUILDING MULTIPLE FAMILY PER UNIT 83 @ $ 75 25 @ $ 100 8 @ $ 125 34 @ $ 150 652 @ $ 25 $ 6,225 2,500 1,000 5,100 $16,300 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $31,125 Estimated Expenses/Rates SECRETARY 388 HOURS AT A RATE OF $10/HR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CONSULTANT INSPECTOR 100% OF REVENUE $ 3,880 7,500 31,125 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $42,505 Revenue Less Expenses at 100% Ratio (Loss) ($11,380) In addition, we did not figure the additional inspection fee into the above costs. However, as indicated earlier, each candidate submitted a price on additional inspections which range from $11 per hour to $35 per hour. We are recommending that within the fee structure proposed earlier that we would include a $30 per hour additional inspections fee. Depending upon what proposal we accepted, the City should cover its costs for that particular inspection. We have no idea as to the number of additional inspections that may be required. With regard to the proposed rental housing ordinance, Chapter 319, we are attaching to this memo a provision that should be included within Section 319:25, dealing with built in deficiencies. We can discuss this provision at the hearing Tuesday evening. We hope that we have provided you with some background and information that will assist you in making a decision to whether the City of Mound goes forward in adopting and implementing the proposed rental housing maintenance ordinance and licensing ordinance. It is our recommendation that the City Council adopt Chapters 319 & 495 and direct the city staff to proceed and negotiate a contract with a consultant housing inspector based upon several factors which would include qualifications, work experience and costs. It is the Staff's and the City Council's position that the program be self-sustaining. ES, JS:ls Built-In De'ftclenctes Exempt,. The following are built- ~ Section 15-313. In deficiencies and shall be exempt from compliance with the Ordinance Code; provided, that such built-in deficiencies were in compliance with a building code at the time of construction and/or.do not pose a hazard. (Il Cetllng Height: Any.existing habitable room wlth less than'a 7.5 foot ceiling height shall be considered a built-tn deficiency which ts beyond reasonable correction. (2) S~uperftctal Floor Areas: A~y existing habitable room of .less than gO square feet shall be considered a built-in deficiency and beyond reasonable correction. (3) Natural Light and VentilatioN: ~ existing habitable roo~wlth window area )ess than 10 percent of the floor area shall be considered a built-in deficiency beyond reasonable correction but in no case shall the required natural light and ventilation be less than $ percent of the floorarea. ($~o. ~-3~3~d b~ (hd. 2~0~: ?/~8/85) MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28~ 1992 1.2 pUBLIC HEARING= CITY ATTORNEY,S SUMMARY, PROPOSED ORDINANCe; ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REOUIREMENT OF OBTAINING ~ ~ICENSE TO RENT HOUSINGa PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCe. ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319) The City Manager e×plained that the Planning Commission has been working on this for a number of years. Section 495 relates to Licensing of Rental Housing and Section 319 relates to Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing. The Building Official reviewed the Executive Summary of the two proposed sections. The purpose of the ordinances is to maintain the housing stock in the community and have people live in a habitable home. The Mayor opened the public hearing. JIM BEDELL, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. stated he feels that rental homes and owner occupied homes will be treated differently if these ordinances are adopted. He thought landlords input should have been incorporated in these ordinances. He did not agree with all items in these ordinances, i e. paved driveways and snow removal. ' Councilmember Jensen stated that the City does not want to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between tenant and landlord. She further stated that the Planning Commission did discuss items that were brought up by landlords at the June 25, 1991, public hearing. There was impasse on some of those items. The City Attorney stated he feels there are some things that need to be addressed before these ordinances are adopted, i.e. how the inspection process will be implemented (providing the time and people to carry out these ordinances), and a fee structure. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn the public hearing until the June 23, 1992, Council Meeting, to provide Staff the time to prepare a fee structure and a plan for how the inspection process will be implemented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LAW OFF'lC;El WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ liDO FIRST BANK PLACe- WI'ST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 March 4, 1992 Mr. Edward J. Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 May~ood 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, a meeting 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 WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ~ERTZ 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 rtis A.~ear~son c-- City Attorney A 77 SUMMARY OP 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. Summary of Section 319 319:00 Purpose of Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties. ae 319:05 319~10 319:15 b® 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. 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. 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. Subdivision, 8 through 12 set out standards for chimneys, grading an~ 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. JAY C. RUSTHOVEN 415 MARSHALL AVE., APT L ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 July 15, 1992 MoundCity Council 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I just learned that a new licensing ordinance for rental property is being proposed and that the proposal is to be considered on Tuesday, July 28 at City Hall. I am writing this letter to inform you that I am very much opposed to this new ordinance which I believe is unnecessary and very expensive. I~m sorry I will be out of town during the week of July 28th., and cannot be present to speak to the issue. Sincerely, Jay~C~. Rugthoven Property owner at 5036-40 Enchanted Rd. Mound, MN 55364 KOENIG & DICKINSON, LIMITED ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOUND OFFICE 2305 Commerce Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Telephone: (612) 472 o 1060 Fax: (612) 472-6103 Vi/ILLIAM R. I(OENIG JAMES B. DICKINSON LEGAL ASSISTANTS Merit M. Kaiser Joanne Johnson WAYZATA OFFICE 3600 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: (612) 471-0171 Fax: (612) 472-6103 July 28, 1992 JUL 2 8 1992 Reply to: Mound City Council City of Mound Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Proposed Per Unit Tax on Rental Properties Ladies and Gentlemen: I am sorry I cannot be at the meeting in person because of other commitments involving a board meeting. I wanted to inject my protest to the proposed per unit tax on behalf of myself and clients of mine who do rent property as well as renters who fear the impact of your proposed ordinance. We are on the perimeters of the Metropolitan area and those people involved in apartment rentals or otherwise have to contend not only with the sluggish local economy but also have to be concerned with competition with the many Metropolitan area. Many people ~vail~ble rental units in t employment in the Metropolitan in this area do seek and find the~ area and I am certain can find units available for rent in a more convenient location than Mound. As to apartment owners and other unit renters, they find difficult enough to sustain them ~he City that basi _ selves in the dow _ for ~ ....... cal~y seems to c~ .... ~--~ nbeat economy oz .~,~yme a~_lnput with lit .... =~ra~e on the business their financial r ~ .... tle. concern~ for the~ =--. . area has all the P ob~=n,s in sustaining themselv~ ~550~ees.~nd aspects of a dying town. ~,, ~n area that I personally have been in Mound since 1957 and have been ve supportive of anything that has t r community but I fee] ~ .... o do with the be~ ...... Y adverse ef~ ~-~ ~ac ~ne impositio- ~ .... ~,,=nu of the ~_, _ ?~ ~n cnat it will ~-:- .y ~ chis tax will hav~ ~au~ bUSiness, v~ ...:,~ . ~ ~uz~n 1~ not des~ .... renters of ,,-~- t~ ".Sxa also have an imna~ .... ~ff Chose in,the lesser ~._~_~,,~u~ in the community who ~ ~ ~fffn ~9?se potential -=,,u~x per month more conve~-~ ~c~-f~nd o=ner units at ...... ~ uu =heir work place. It appears further, that very little encourage the image of Mound a is being done by the City to to that create ~, ~ ...... nd to create an atm d ~,, ~=~slor or Stillwater or other°~e similar We have Page two July 28, 1992 to rely our ingenuity to encourage people to not only live in the area but at least visit the area. I would hope that this proposed tax which would be nothing other than an income raising device is defeated. If passed, you can see that it will not stop at $25.00 or whatever per unit, but will continue to accelerate as is the case with any other program devised of this kind supposedly as intended for the betterment of the general public. Very truly yours, William R. Koenlg WRK: jj ~t'~""ON~ 0~3~-~000 ~u~7 27~ 1992 Ms. Dorothy Netka 23500 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Dear '4. Below are our opinions concerning the proposal to license rental property owners in Mound, Minnesota. Please feel free to forward this letter to the appropriate 1. At =he Present t~me of economic ~lfflcult~es for all, it is shocking ~he c£ty of charge to the taxpaytng Mound is attempting to levy another landowners. Today, every astute econo- mls~ is urging our lawmakers = regulations and char-e. ..... ~.r~move burdens of Unnecessary =" ~ u~pl~al investments in our country an~ to provide incentives for capita/ investment. The City of Mound seems to be doing the exac~ opposite. The capital ~nves~ment rate in Mound is stagnant enough with- ou~ passing the proposed ordinanoe. may well discourage investors from the The proposed ordinance area. The potential in- vestors wlll simply invest in Other c£t~es that do not impose such charges and restrlct~ons. The proposed ordinance may only serve ~o be counter productive and lessen the housing stock in Mound. Most landlords w£11 eventually pass on any costs of proposed l~censlng to renters, who in mos~ cases are usually in an even less f~nanctally secure Position to incur increases. Hence, rental rates may also escalate and discourage renters in the area. There is no rations1 reason for this proposed ordinance to be made into law. We lived in Mound for three Years and visit yearly. We have never kn problem in Mound. u ..... own there to be Clt .... '== lc Peen de*~-- ...... an federal codes are -~-',,~--~.=~a= the ~-.~ reviewed re-..--- - inadequate7 necessary in MOund? Please provide us taxpsylng landowners with documen~atlon. ~'2 t72 7777'- 3 Ms. Dorothy Netka July 27, 1992 Page ~wo The proposed ordinance seems to be an £nstrument :hat attempts to keep Mound's building officials, city managers, employees and building inspectors busy and Xn business. This is all at the expense of taxpaying landowners, a majority of whom main- tain their property in very good condition and in compliance with all existing codes. For all the above reasons, we oppose the proposed ordinance. Sincerely, / AM T. I(:LDEE JODY KLASK KILDEE WTE/sab eric, (Miss) Sylvia Ogren HOME ECONOMICS CONSULTANT 1756 LAFAYETTE LANE MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-2058 July 2h, 1992 CREATIVE FOOD IDEAS AND PROMOTIONS NEW PRODUCT IDEA DEVELOPMENT Dear Dorothy, This is a letter to confirm the work you and your people have been doing on the rental inspection that is being proposed. I hope it can be stopped. I affirm all that Has been printed in the editorials and can be quoted in disagreement with their philosophy. FOOD PHOTOGRAPHY (FOOD STYLIST) FOOD PUBLICITY COOKBOOK DEVELOPMENT MARKETING CONSUL TANT Some questions--dhy ~asn't one informed? I am sure they must not re-- alize how little profit there is in rental property. I have yet to come out in the black. I heard it is to be a yearly thing. How un- necessary. If there is a change are they going to make the tenants do the repair? In a time of money shortages and recession why are they adding extra expenses? It means a rent increase to pay the cost of inspection. I would bet ghat the majority of rental units are kept in gool repair. I have found tenants to be very insistent and they have alwa]ys moved into a home in perfect condition. I don't need a bureaucracy to tell me what to do. If there are rental units in disrepair another way can be found to keep them in check. All need not be penalized. A-o they not interested in ha~ng rental property in the area? They are adding to the cost and inconvenience f~r the landlord and an increase in rents that will have to be passed on to the ter~nts. I am already paying close to $5,000.00 in no--homestead real estate taxes for one house which is too much. It seems like the right to privacy is also being destz'oyed if they are going into a PriVate home yearly. Luck, Who's leading the charge? Hey now, who's leading the charge? Do we have many religious groups, welfare workers, H.U.D. representatives, tennants' union's officers' and oppressed renters themselves pounding on the city hall door and demanding a rental housing licensure law? Or, do we maybe just have one to three council members out front leading that charge with virtually no one really following them? How many renters have ever petitioned our city government of the people, by the people and for the people for a rental licensing law? How many have demonstrated in the streets because the city ignores their basic housing needs? A report of the June 23 council meeting state, d: 1. "The purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the housing stock in the community and have people live in a habitable home.' How can a rental license law applying to only 150 rental bui/clings result in maintenance of all oar 3,200 or so housing stock and have all 10,000 of us Moandites living in a habitable home? 2. "People ~vho rent units in' this city have a right to a safe place to live. Mound has a 'ccr:lus of marginal housing and thi.,: orc2inance is designed to address that." Seems we only want to require maters to live in habitable and safe places. That's unfair, we all should have the right to pay $75 yearly to be told if we're living in habitable and safe housing or not. The inspector's suggested fee estimate figures o~t to be at least $26,025 yearly to go to 150 kta~. bui_Idings or houses and S~bvS~. __ _l~osing units. Not Y, $26.000 for about three weeks' work looking at an average of 10 boil '.dings per eight hour day for 15 working days. The second year's inspection would take maybe half the fa'st year's lime? Lakewinds' 192 units were constructed in 1970 and then converted to condos and completely refurbished (new decorating, appliances, paint, stain, carpeting, countertops, electrical outlets, GFI circuits, etc.) in 1984-86; the 106 Seahorse units were built ahoot 1965; the 88 Grandview Terrace units were built in 1970; Westonka Estates was built in 1984; Westonka ¥illa was Completed in 1970;, all big rental unit buildings built by professional contractors, by. skilled tradesmen, with modern materials according to current building codes. The problem housing in Mound is not all these rentals, it's the old houses built years ago by week-end amateurs using old materials 'and following few or no building codes - old plumbing, wiring, heating units, siding and windows now beyond repair. Why tel/a landlord to fix up his old house, but not tell the owner- resident of a similar house right next door to do the same fix-ups? Will any of our council people have the gaff to demand licensing of all these newer rental units, while continuing to live in their own unlicensed, uninspected houses originally constructed in 1918, 1930, 1930, 1947 and 19547 Ted Fox Mound, MN PLEASE SIGN THIS ~,F YOU RENT HOB~/NG~~TS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN 55364 July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL $75.00 INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. IF W~ BECOME DISSATiSFiED. WE CAN MOVE _ \ N~ ~ ~ ---...,' . ~--- . '. .... ~ '~ A ~ -Z:,,3.','~ L,.:. ~' '~~,%: ~'. % ': ..~:0~'','- u,."- . _ ,t'-~.o'-z. ,.. ,- !. ' z...,-~'-~_L. '~ ',,' : ~' .'!- . ..:, ~ " - ,.,_~' '_". " ~:',' '-->" -f -- x~ ',. · . ~ ' ' .' · : /£, - ,_ . ~ ~ ,--. :. PLEASE SIGN THIS IF YOU RENT ~0USING & AGREE WITH ITS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN 55364 - July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL $75 00 INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. WE CAN MOVE IF WE BECOME DISSATISFIED. ' NAME ADDRESS PLEASE SIGN THIS IF YOU RENT HOUSING & AGREE WITH ITS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN 5536-~~ July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ADDRESS PLEASE SIGN THIS IF YOU RENT ~0USING & ~GREE WITH ITS MESSAGE. THANK. YOU. Mound,~ July, ~992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL $75.00 INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. WE CAN MOVE IF WE BECOME DISSATISFIED. NAME 1 ADDRESS ,/ SIGN THIS IF YOU RENT HOUSING & AGREE WITH ITS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN 55364 July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL $75.00 INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. WE CAN MOVE IF WE BECOME DISSATISFIED. PLEASE SIGN THIS IF YOU RENT HOUSING & AGREE WITH ITS MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN553---~~ July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. ~ IF WE BECOME DISSATISFIED. WE CAN MOVE NAME ~IS IF YOU RENT HO___USING & AGREE WITH IT__S MESSAGE. THANK YOU. PETITION FOR MOUND CITY COUNCIL Mound, MN 55364 July, 1992 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, FEEL THAT THE HOUSING WE ARE NOW RENTING IN MOUND IS ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED, HEALTHY, AND HABITABLE; OUR "RIGHT TO A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE" IS NOW BEING FULFILLED. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER ANNUAL INSPECTOR'S FEE ADDED TO THE COSTS AND TAXES WE NOW PAY FOR. WE CAN MOVE IF WE BECO DISSATISFIED. ORDINANCE NO. cITY cODE ON 495 TO THE The city of Mound Does section 495 read as follOWS: ordain: is hereby added to the city code and shall · 495 - Rental~ ~ this ordinance p~/~. It is the purpose of of citizens of the to to protect the public health, safety and welfare city who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished them for the payment of a rental charge to another- . . t of this ordinance ~ ~s the lnten ._~ the ~' ~ ~n~ and regu~%t'~=~hat uniform · 59:05. rotec~--~ · e~; a~= ~ . 'n eotxon 4 __~ mode of P .... ~ establish _~ a elllngs onditions oz u~4=h d and ~%andards be e the city. seotxon '~' ses of section 495:00 et seq. the ...~a 1. For the~Ps°~ction shall have the meanings %iven terms define . . . ich follOW: them in the subdivisions wh subd. Z. ~. As used in this ordinance the term ,,rental dwelling" shall mean any re~tal dwelling with one or more living units- ,,Rental dwelling does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. AS used in this ordinance, the term SUba. 3. 0 er--Rg~' charge a rental fee for the use of a unit city Manage_ ~ .... ~ns for ~%rst day oz .... ~-enses. APPIi~~ such license~. ~L~ SDecifY the ~u~ ~ ~he rental aDDlicatlO~ ~=~* - -~ the owner oz u . ~ lives ~- address u~_ _ ental dwelling - == 1. Name an~___ ehe owner ufa r _:-~ation snal~ sumu. ~_ ~es wnel= ~ ..~:~. the regxo~ ~-~e ~or outsige oz~n~o~tor who made Dy an compliance With this and Other ordinances and su Shall live in the Seven County metropolitan area.ch Operator S~bd. 2. Names and address of any Operator managing said rental dwelling, or agent actively S~bd. 3. Name and address of is a Partnership. all Partners if the registrant Subd. 4. Name and address of all officers if the registrant is a corporation, of the cOrporation Sub4. $. Name and a~dress of the vendee if the rental dwelling is owned or being Sold on 8tlbd. 6. a contract for deed. Legal address of the rental dwelling Sub~. 7. NUmber and kind of units within the rlntal dwelling classified as dwelling units, multiple dwelling units, or rooming units or Other. Sub4. 8. Height of the rental dwelling in Stories. Subd. 9. Construction WOod or Other. of exterior of building classified as Subd. ~0. Such Other information as the City Manager deems necessary and relevant to administer the Ordinances. City Code of Section 495:25. ~Xecution. be SUbscribed and sworn to byapplication s qualified to take oaths and shall re a . OWner is a natural ~p~lcant befo -- A~ hall Unincorporated a Partnership by sb n u~rlcer duly ~ such thereof, association, by the manager or , and if an the partners. _~Y an managing officer Section 495:30. application _~ . LiCense the licens^ %ignatur~. NA~ .... fllllng ou~t~equired~%%~%s 3f Sectio~UU~J~anding the required ren~,=, ~ Dy this ~_ .~o, renewal to the OWner, o er ~-~x form ~- . ~u~ ma .... ~aid form t~-~? ator or a--~ - ~urnlshed b,, ~ ~ ~e made bt, Manager ~3J~ner with the L~"_~ .o~ a rental ~ ~ une City Manage~ · ~uun renewa~ -~ ~qulred r^_~ _ ~=~lng and mailing has not been ~ u£ registrat~, ~?aSt~atlon fee to the City a change in ~,, mdy onl,- ~ the OWnership, ~ De made where there Occupancy as originally licensed, agent or type of operator, Section 495:35. ~' Such license fee amount set by the Council from time to time. Shall be in the Section 495:40. Shall post t ~. . multiple dwe~i~n~l license m/VsesruYeJebg, lstran? of a rental dw ~, une annual licens- -~ ~he City Man-- elling = ~nall be con ~_l~er[ In any ,~/ S~uuOUSly pOSted (in a 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. Maintenance Standards. Every rental dwelling shall maintain the standards in Chapter 319, Housing Maintenance Code, for Rental Dwellings, in addition to any other regulations of the ordinances of the City or special permits issued by the City, or the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 495:?0. 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. Where 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 parking areas in a safe and passable condition. Section 495:75. Safety From Fire. 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. Inspections and Investigations. Subd. 1. The city Manager and the duly appointed compliance official are hereby authorized to make inspections reasonably necessary to the enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Ail 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 495:85. 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 ordinance or law violations with which they are charged. This notice shall also specify the date for hearing before the Council, which shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the notice. Sub4. 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 made; 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. Subd. 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. Sub4. 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. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by City Council Published Official Newspaper ORDINANCE NO. ~N ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING I~INTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 319 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 319 - Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Properties section 319:00. Purpose. 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 or occupants or 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. Section 319:05. ~ppllcabillt¥ of Ordinance. This ordinance establishes minimum standards for maintaining rental dwelling units, accessory structures and related premises. This 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. These regulations shall apply to rental housing as defined and licensed by Section 495 of the City Code. Section 319=10. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance. Subd. 1. ~ccessor¥ Use or Structure,. A nonresidential use or structure subordinate to, and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. Subd. 2. ADDroved. 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 reason of accepted principals or tests by recognized authorities, technical or scientific organizations. Bubd. 3. Building. 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. ~ompliance Official. 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. Dwelling, One-Family. A building designed exclusively for and occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Subd. 7. Dwelling, TwO-Family. A building designed exclusively for or occupied by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other. Subd. 8. Dwellinq, Two-Family Twin Home. 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 acting as a dividing lot line. Subd. 9. Dwelling Unit. A single family dwelling or unit designed to accommodate one family. Su~d. 10. Family. An individual, or two or more persons each related by blood, marriage, adoption, 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 bowl 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. Habitable Buildlnq. 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. Habitable Space (Room).. Space in a 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. Heated Water. Water heated to a temperature of not less than 110 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 Family Dwellings. A dwelling or 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. Z0. Operate. As used in this ordinance, the term ,'operate" means to charge a rental fee for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. 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. Qwner. 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 owner. Subd. 23. Permissible Occupancy. The maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit. Subd. 24. Person. An individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or joint venture or organization of any kind. Subd. 25. ~. All of the following supplied facilities and equipment in a dwelling: gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam pipes, 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 Hall. A hall, 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. ~efuse. As defined and regulated by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 29. Rental Dwelling. As used in this ordinance the term "rental dwelling,, shall mean any dwelling rented or leased 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. 30. Re_~ir. 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 Harborage. A place where rodents commonly live, nest, or establish their habitat. Subd. 3S. under the dwelling. Subd. 32. Roomina Unit. 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. As defined and regulated in Section 490 of the city Code. 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 building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or 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. Su~d. 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 Dwellinq. Any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by City ordinance. SupDlied. Paid for, furnished by, provided by or control of the owner, operator, or agent of a 8ubd. 39. Meaninq of Certain 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 Owners 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. 1. Maintenance 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. maintenance 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. $. 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.. ~ e and Dis osal of Garbage and Rubbzsh. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, or dwelling, two family town homes 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 Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 5. Responsibility for Storm and Screen Doors an, Windows. 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 or this ordinance. Subd. 6. ~esponslbilit¥ for Pest Exterminatiol.,. 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 in 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 shall be the responsibility of the owner. Subd. 7. ~odent Harborages Prohibited in Occupied 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 in piles at least 4 inches off bare soil or ground. Bubd. 8. Rodent Harboraqes Prohibited in Public &teas. 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. Prevention 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. Maintenance of plumbing Fixtures and Facilitie~. The owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall maintain all supplied plumbing fixtures and facilities therein. Subd. 11. Minimum Heating Capability and Maintenance. In every dwelling unit or rooming unit when the control uf the supplied heat is the responsibility 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 all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments from September 15 to May 1. Subd. 12. Removal of Snow and Ice. 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. Subd. 13. Minimum Exterior Li~htinq. The owner of a rental dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining effective illumination in all exterior parking areas and walkways. Subd. 14. Maintenance of Driving and Parking Area~. The owner of a rental dwelling, two family, or a dwelling, two 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/Occupant Responsibilities Defined. Every owner remains liable for violations of duties impused 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 b.-~ . u~a~ng in a sound structural condition, shall be responsible for keepina that part of the building or premises which they occupy or c~ntrol sanitary and safe condition, in a clean, Every occupant 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 bylaw. All occupants shall keep their premises in a safe and sanitary condition. Section 319=20. Ninimum Standards for Basic E i merit and 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 which 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 safekeeping; 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. Subd. 3. Provide a stove or similar devise for cooking food and refrigeration 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 is 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 unit shall have at least four (4) square feet of floor area to ceiling closet space for personal e~f~cts of each permissible occupant. If it is lacking in wno~e or in part, an amount of space e ual in ~ to .the deficiency shall ~ ...... q _ square footage ~ subtracted from the area of habitable room space used to determine Permissible occupancy. Subd. 5. Toilet Facilities. 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 property, and shall be connected to a sewer system in compliance with Section 300, 305, and 600 of the city Code. Subd. 6. Lavatory Sink. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as the flush 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 or Shower. Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non-habitable room which is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working condition, 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. General Requirements. 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: Subd. 1. Foundations, Exterior Walls and Roofs. The foundation, exterior walls and exterior roof ~hall be substantially water tight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. The foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior wall shall be free of structural deterioration or any other condition which might 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. Ail exterior surfaces, other than decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and 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, Doors and Screen~. Every window, exterior door and hatchway shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in repair. Every window other that 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 and Ceiling~,. 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 have a paved with concrete or other rodent impervious material. Subd. 5. Fence Maintenance. Ail 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. Subd. 6. ~ccessory Structure Maintenance. A c c e s s o r y 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 paint or other preservatives. 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. safe Buildinq Blement~. Every foundation, floor, roof, exterior and interior wall, ceilings, and every appurtenance thereto of a rental dwellings shall be safe to use and capable of supporting loads that normal use may cause to be placed thereon. Every stairway, inside or outside, of a rental dwelling and every porch or balcony shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. 1. Every flight of stairs and every porch and balcony floor shall be free of deterioration. 2. Every stairwell and every flight of stairs which is more that 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. 3. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed 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. 4. Every handrail and balustrade shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. 5. 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. 6. No flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose, or deteriorating supports. 7. Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be uniform in width and height. 8. Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of two hundred (200) pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. c. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one (1) operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue. The units shall be operable from the inside to provide a full clear opening without the use of separate tools. 1. All egress or rescue windows from sleeping rooms shall have a total glazed area of at least five (5) square feet. The smallest net clear opening for each such window shall be twenty (20) inches in width by twenty-four (24) inches in height. 2. 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. 3. 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. d. All dwellings shall have incorporated 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. Facilities to Function. 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 Drainage. 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. Yard Cover. Every yard to a premise on which a dwelling stands shall be maintained to prevent dust and erosion. Subd. 11. Minimum Ceiling Height. In order to qualify as habitable rooms of rental dwellings and rental dwelling units, rooms shall have a clear ceiling height of not less than seven (7) feet, except that in attics or tophalf-stories used for sleeping, study or similar activities, the ceiling height shall be not less 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. 8ubd. 12. Access Throu h 81ee in 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. Section 319:30. Door and Window Lock~. No owner, shall rent or let to 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: Su~d. 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 the building entrance doors and with key cylinder 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. S~bd. 2. Every door that provides ingress and egress for a dwelling unit within 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 yard grade shall be equipped with locking devices to secure the window in a closed position. Section 319:35. Minimum Standards for Liqht and Ventilation. No person shall let to another for occupancy any dwelling ur dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: Ail habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural lights by means of exterior glazed 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. Ail habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of openable exterior openings with a 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 and 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. ~lectrlc Service, Outlets and Fi~ure~. Every dwelling 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 of electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows: Sub4. Z. A dwelling containing one or two dwelling units shall have at least the equivalent of 60 ampere, three-wire electric service per dwelling unit. Sub4. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each 600 square feet of dwelling unit floor area. 8ubd. 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 s~pplied i~ lieu of one required electric outlet. Subd. 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen. laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least on~ supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture and every bathroom, kitchen an laundry room shall contain at least one electric convenience outlet. Subd. 5. Every public hall and stairway in every rental dwelling shall be adequately lighted by natural or electric light at all times, so as to provide effective illumination. Every public hall 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. 8ubd. 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling shall be located near the point of entrance to such unit. Section 319:45. ~inimum Thermal Standards. 8ubd. 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. S~b4. Z. 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. Su~4. 3. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirement of this section and is prohibited. Sub4. 4. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or use a space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. Section 319:50. Winterizlnq. Owners of residential rental properties built before 1976 that are occupied from November 1 through April i are required to comply with energy-efficiency standards in compliance with Minnesota State Rules 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. Z. Install storm doors, unless the existing door, vestibule or enclosed porch provides an R-value of two or more. Subd. 3. Install positive shut offs on all fireplaces and fireplace stoves. 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-ii. Subd. 6. Install insulation in or on accessible walls and floors enclosing conditioned spaces to achieve a minimum total "R" value of the insulation of R-11. 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. 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. e. 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-family homes. Additional options are available under Minnesota State Rules 4170 4100 provisions. . Section 319:55. Fire Protectio,. 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. 8ubd. ~. ~umber of Exit~. Every occupied floor above the first story shall have access to at least two separate exits, one of which 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 a fire escape impracticable. EXCEPTION: In all occupancies, second stories with an occupant load of 10 or less may have one exit. An exit ladder device when used in lieu of the fire escape shall conform with Appendix A, and the following: a. 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. d. Shall not pass in front of any building opening below the unit being served. e. The availability of activating the device for the ladder is accessible only from the opening or balcony served. f. So installed that it will not cause a person using it to be within 6 feet of exposed electrical wiring. Su~d. 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 a 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. a. Openings. Corridor walls, shall be protected by a tight- fitting smoke and draft-control 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 listing. In lieu of a 20 minute fire assembly, a solid wood 1-3/4 inch thick door may be used at door openings if the building predated the Minnesota State Building Code of 1972. Where the existing frame will 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 gasket 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 I 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. b. 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. Sub4. 4. F~.re Escape~. Existing fire escapes which in the opinion 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: Access from a corridor shall not be through intervening room. an Ail 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. Fire escape stairways and balconies shall support the dead load plus a live load of not less than 100 pounds per square foot and shall be provided with a top and intermediate handrail on each side. The it stairway shall not exceed 60 de~ ~ ..... ~ ~. ~h of.the ~r~ -~L~ a minimum width of 18 inches. Treads shall be not less than 4 inches in width and rise between treads shall not exceed 10 inches. All stair and balcony railings shall support a horizontal force of not less that 50 pounds per lineal foot of railing. 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 o enin in such balconies shall be not l~ ~ ...... P . gs The bal,,~ .... ~o ~n zz inches Dy 44 ~u~ uz each balcony shall be not ~ess inches. than 36 inches high with not more than 9 inches between balusters. Fire escapes shall extend to the roof or provide an approved gooseneck 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 on center. Openings for roof access ladders through cornices and similar projections shall have minimum dimensions of 30 inches by 33 inches. g. 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. h. Fire escapes shall not take the place of stairways required by the codes under which the building was constructed. i. Fire escapes shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times and maintained in good working order. Subd. 5. Exit and Fire Escape Siqn~. 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. Ail 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 in apartment houses that are three or more stories in height or contain more than 15 dwelling units. EXCEPTIONS: a. 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 or yard, exterior stairway or exterior exit balcony. b. 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. 8ubd. 8. Smoke Detectors. a. ~eneral. 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. b. Location Within Dwelling Units. Detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling or wall at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. When 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 split into two levels, the smoke detector shall be installed on the 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. c. Power Source. In every multiple dwelling, required smoke detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring. Wiring 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. Section 319:60. Maximum Densit Minimum S ace For Rental ~nits. 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 Occupancy of Dwelling Uni~.. The Maximum permissible occupancy of any rental dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: For the first occupant, 150 square feet of habitable room floor space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least 100 square feet of habitable room floor space. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two times the number of habitable rooms less kitchen, in the dwelling unit. ' Sub4. 2. One F-mily Per Dwellinq Unit. Not more than one family except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling unit. Section 319~65. Enforcement and Inspection Authority. 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. Inspections shall be conducted during reasonable hours and the 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 owner, occupant, or other person in charge of the dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or of a multiple dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the structure or premises under 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 for H~an Habitation. Sub4. 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 the 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. Whenever any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit has been declared unfit for human habitation, the Compliance official shall 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. Sub~. 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 Compliance official. It shall be unlawful 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 Dwelllngs. 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 ShalI:make the same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public. The materials used to secure the 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. Hazardous Building Declaration. In the event that dwelling has been declared unfit for human habitation and the owner 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 Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.261. Section 319=90. Compliance 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 Compliance 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 personally; or b. 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 owner of record, or the owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the occupying tenant, 23o& 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 posting 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 319:95. Riqht of Appeal. When it is alleged by any person to whom 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. The 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. Board of Appeal's Decision. Upon at least five (5) business days' notice to the appellant of the time and place for 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 on Transfer of Ownership. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dwelling, dwelling 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. Penalties. 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 failure to comply shall constitute a separate punishable offense. Section 319:115. Execution of Compliance Orders by Public Authority. Upon failure to comply with a compliance order within the time set therein, and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure 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 Statutes Section 429.101, Subd. 1, and specifically for the removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. It is the intent of this section to authorize the City to utilize all the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and Section 370 of the City Code to promote the public's health, safety and general welfare. section 319:120. Severabilit¥ 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 remaining portions of this ordinance. LANDLORDS AND TENANTS: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CONTENTS Introduction 4 ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT Inspection of the Unit Before Signing 5 Application Fees 5 Security Deposits 6 Amount of Deposit 6 Tenant Repons 7 The Lease 8 Periodic Tenancy Leases 9 Definite Term Leases Utilities 9 10 Maintenance 10 Alterations 11 DURING THE TENANCY The Rent 11 Payments 11 Late Fees 12 Raising the Rent 12 Tenant's Right to Privacy 12 Repair Problems 13 Calling in an Inspector 14 Rent Escrow 14 Withholding Rent 17 Using the Tenant's Remedies Act18 Rent Abatement 19 Defense 20 Neighborhood Organizations 21 Condemned Dwellings 22 2 ENDING THE TENANCY Proper Notice 22 For Periodic Tenancies 22 For Definite Term Tenancies 23 Holdover Tenants 24 Section 8 25 Three Day Notice During Winter 26 Refund of Security Deposit 26 Interest 27 Taking the Matter to Court 27 0 THER IMPOR TA NT LA WS Housing Courts 28 Eviction 29 Unlawful Detainer Actions 29 Storage of Personal Property 31 To Get the Property Back 32 For Manufacture or Sale of Drugs 33 Seizure of Property 34 Retaliation 34 Unlawful Exclusions and Property Confiscation 35 Utility Cutoffs 36 Loss of Essential Services 37 Cold Weather Rule 38 Tenant's Right to a Tax Credit 40 Discrimination 40 Handicapped-Accessible Unit 42 Landlord Disclosure 42 Subleasing 43 Abandoned Property 44 FUR THER INFORMATION Where to Go for Help 46 About This Booklet 55 Additional Brochures Available 56 3 073/0 LANDLORDS AND TENANTS: RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES INTRODUCTION According to Minnesota law, any time the owner of a house, apartment, room, or other living quarter agrees to give to someone else mfor a fee--the temporary use of that place, the two have entered into a legally binding rental con~'act. ' It doesn't matter if the deal is oral or in writing. It is an agreement to rent, and that means that some of its most important terms are automati- cally defined by law. Some of these terms are fixed--that is, neither landlord nor tenant can change them. Other terms can be whatever the landlord and tenant want them to be as long as all parties agree to them. The following pages describe what the law requires of both landlords and tenants in a typical rental agreement. PaJ'ticular attention is given to the parts of the agreement that are fixed and unchangeable and those which can be shaped by the landlord or tenant. ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT INSPECTION OF THE UNIT BEFORE SIGNING Prospective tenants should be allowed to see the rental unit before they put theft money down. They should also be allowed to inspect the utilities--the appliances, the electrical system, the plumbing, heating and lights--as well as locks and windows. They may, if they choose, make a list of any problems they discover, and may request the landlord to sign the list before they sign any lease. Landlords can refuse to cooperate (these are not "rights" legally enforceable in court), but cooperation is advised. To have a list is in the best interest of both landlord and tenant, since it protects all parties if there is a disagreement over who is responsible for any repairs. APPLICATION FEES Some landlords require prospective tenants t( pay an application fee. Many landlords do not. If required, the fee is used to cover the cost of checking the tenant's references. Prospective tenants should ask if an applica- tion fee is required and, if so, the amount of the fee. This should be considered when deciding where to rent. Tenants should also ask if appli- cation fees are refundable and request a receipt for payment. 4 5 SECURITY DEPOSITS Landlords have the right to require tenants to pay a gecurity deposit (sometimes called a damage deposit). This is money paid by the tenant and held by the landlord to pay for any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear the tenant might do to the rental unit, any unpaid rent, or any money the tenant owes to the landlord under some agreement. The deposit cannot be used by the tenant to pay the rent. Amount of the Deposit Minnesota law does not limit the amount a landlord may require as a security deposit. A landlord can increase the amount of the security deposit at any ti me during a"periodic tenancy" (a rental agreement in which no final date is mentioned), but only if the tenant is given proper advance written notice. Generally, this is one rental period pi us a day. (See page 22 for an explanation of "proper notice.") If the deposit amount is stated in the rental agreement, and the rental agreement has a definite ending date, no changes in the deposit can be made except according to the provisions of the agreement, or unless both parties agree. At the end of the tenancy, the landlord must return the deposit to the tenant with interest (5.5 percent noncompounded per year). The landlord may keep the amount necessary to repair any damage done to the unit by the tenant, or to pay off other debts, including any unpaid rent, the tenant may owe the landlord if that has been part of some agreement. (See 6 page 26 for landlord-tenant rights in the refund of security deposits.) TENANT REPORTS A "Tenant Report" is defined by Minnesota law as a written, oral, or other communication by a tenant screening service. This report consists of information about an individual's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit ca- pacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or lifestyle. It is collected and used, or expected to be used, to approve or deny a tenancy. The agencies that compile tenant reports are called"Tenant Screening Services." This ter applies to anyone who gathers, stores, and disseminates information about tenants, or as- sembles tenant reports for a fee. Minnesota law requires landlords and tenant screening services to disclose the following information to an individual: 1) 2) The nature and substance of all inforrna- tion about the individual in their files at the time of the request. The sources of the information. If, in the past thirty days, information from the tenant screening service has been used to deny rental, or increase the rent or security deposit of a residential housing unit, the tenant screening service is, upon request, required to make this information known to the individual without charge. If the information fi'om the tenant report was not used in this manner during the past thirty days, a reasonable fee 7 ,,23/2. l) may be charged for making the disclosure. However, the tenant screening service must tell the tenant what the fee is before furnishing the information. The fee may not exceed the amount the tenant screening service would charge each designated recipient of a tenant report If a person feels that his or her tenant report is incomplete or inaccurate, the person can require the tenant screening service to reinvestigate and record the current status of the information. If it is found to be inaccurate or no longer can be verified, the tenant screening service must delete the information from the individual's file and tenant report. The individual can request that the tenant screening service send notifi- cation of the change to persons who received tenant reports within the last six months. If the owner uses information in the tenant report to deny rental, or increase the security deposit or rent of the residential housing unit, the owner is required to inform the prospective tenant of the name and the address of the tenant screening service that provided the tenant re- pon. THE LEASE The terms of any rental agreement are stated in the lease, which can be either a signed, written document, or an oral understanding. There are essentially two kinds of leases: The periodic tenancy lease (which is generally a month-to-month, automatic renewal rental agreement). The definite term lease (a rental agree- 8 ment specifying a definite rental pe- riod, generally six months or a year). The laws are different for each, so we'll exam- ine them one at a time. Periodic Tenancy Leases If there is nothing mentioned about the length of the tenancy in the rental agreement (which may be written or oral), the lease is a periodic one. This means the rental period runs from one rent payment to the next. For example, if the rent is due once a month, on the first of every month, the rental period runs from that day through the day before the next rent pay- ment. In this case, that would be on the last day of each month. A periodic tenancy is automatically renewed each rental period until it is ended by either the landlord or the tenant. The person ending the tenancy must give the other a"proper notice." The length of notice and what form it must take will be stated in the lease. If the lease does not state a notice requirement, state law requires written notice be given one full rental peritx plus one day before the tenancy's end. For example, a tenant living under a month:to- month tenancy and wishing to leave at the end of June, would have to give written notice no later than May 31. (See page 22 for a more complete explanation of "proper notice.") Definite Term Leases If the lease states how long the tenancy will last, (usually six months or a year), the agree- ment is a definite term lease. These kinds of leases are usually written. If they are for more than a year, they must be in writing. Definite 9 term leases generally state what kind of notice is required to end the tenancy. If there is no notice requirement, the tenancy automatically ends on the day the lease says it does, unless the landlord and tenant agree (prefe[ably in writing) to some other kind of mTangement. UTILITIES The lease should state who is responsible for paying what utilities. In some cases the land- lord pays for heat, electricity, and water; in others, the tenant is responsible. If this issue is not addressed in the lease, tenant and landlord should work out their own understanding, have it put in writing and signed by both. Information about utility cutoffs is found on page 36. MAINTENANCE According to Minnesota law the landlord is responsible to make sure that the rental unit is: 1) 2) 3) Fit to live in. Kept in reasonable repair. Kept in compliance with state and lo- cal health and housing codes. It is illegal for a landlord to deny responsibility for such things. The tenant must not abuse the rental property, and must pay for any damages he or she may cause beyond normal wear and tear. Some repairs or maintenance duties, however, (like yardwork, etc.) can become the duty of the tenant if: 10 1) 2) both parties agree in wriling that the tenant is supposed to do them; and the tenant is paid for it, either by a reduction in rent or direct payment from the landlord. (See page 13 for procedures to be followed in repair disputes.) ALTERATIONS The tenant cannot alter the rental unit without the landlord's permission. Ordinarily, a tenant is not allowed to paper or paint walls, resurface floors, dismantle or install permanent fixtures, alter woodwork or carpet, or make other changes without the landlord's permission. DURING THE TENANCY THE RENT Payments Tenants must pay rent on the due date, whether they have a periodic lease or a definite term lease. The due date and amount of rent are determined by the lease. If a tenant does not pay the rent, the landlord may take legal action to evict the tenant. If the tenant moves out before the lease runs out, he or she is still responsible for paying the rent for the full term (if the lease is definite term), or for the full rental period (if it is a periodic lease); unless another tenant can be found to pick up the balance of the lease and the landlord agrees to release the original ten- ant from the lease. 11 Late Fees The rent must be paid on the date it is due. When a tenant fails to pay the rent by the due date, the landlord has the legal right to start eviction proceedings. (See page 29 for an explanation.) If a tenant misses the due date, landlords may require the tenant to pay a late fee. The lease must state how much the late fee will be and when it is due. The late fee must be a reasonable amount. Raising the Rent Under a periodic tenancy, a landlord cannot raise the rent unless he or she gives proper written notice. Under a month-to-month ten- ancy, the notice is one rental period plus one day. (See page 22 for an explanation of"proper notice.") During a definite term lease, rent cannot be raised unless the lease allows for an increase. TENANT'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY A landlord cannot enter the rental unit without the tenant's consent except in cases of emer- gencies. If a landlord wishes to make repairs and needs to get into a tenant's rental unit, he or she must first get the tenant's permission, otherwise the landlord is trespassing and can be arrested or sued in court. However, the landlord may write a provision into the lease giving him or her the fight to enter a tenant's unit under reasonable conditions, such as to make repairs, to check potential physical prob- lems, or to show the unit to prospective new renters or purchasers. But, unless the landlord puts these provisions into the lease, his or her right to enter is basically limited to just emer- gency situations. (It should be noted that, in 12 practice, there is an implied right to enter if the landlord has to do so to make required or requested repairs. The tenant should not un- reasonably refuse permission to a landlord to enter in such cases. It is a good idea for t}' tenant and landlord to agree ahead of timv when repairs may be made.) REPAIR PROBLEMS Minnesota law requires that the landlord keep the unit in reasonable repair. This requirement cannot be waived. In other words, the lease agreement cannot say that the landlord has no duty to repair and maintain the rental unit. However, the landlord and the tenant can agree that the tenant will do certain specific repairs or maintenance, but only if: 1) 2) This requirement is in writing. The tenant receives something ad- equate in return (for example, a rent reduction or payment from the landlord for the work). If the tenant has trouble getting the landlord tc make necessary repairs in the unit, there are six steps the tenant can take: !) 2) 3) 4) File a complaint with the local housing, health, energy or fire inspector--if there is one--and ask that an inspection be made of the unit. Place the full rent in escrow with the court, and ask the court to order the landlord to make repairs. Withhold the rent. Sue the landlord in disu'ict court under the Tenant's Remedies Law. 13 5) 6) Sue in conciliation court or district court for rent abatement (for the return of part or, in extreme cases, all of the rent). Use the landlord's failure to make nec- essary repairs as a defense to either the landlord's Unlawful Detainer (evic- tion) action based on nonpayment of rent, or the landlord's separate actior for rent. We'll examine these one at a time. Calling In An Inspector If there is a local housing, health, energy, or fire inspector called in by the tenant, and the inspector finds code violations in the unit, the inspector will give the landlord a certain amoun~ of time to correct them. If the landlord does not make corrections, the inspector has the au- thority to serve a summons on the landlord to appear in court. If the inspector does not find code violations, tenants can request another inspection which may provide the necessary incentive to the landlord. Important note: A landlord cannot retaliate (strike back) by filing an eviction notice, or by increasing rent, ordecreasing services, because the tenant contacts an inspector. (See page 34 for more information about retaliatory landlord conduct.) Rent Escrow Tenants may now place rent in an escrow account when a landlord will not correct hous- ing violations. Under the Rent Escrow Law, tenants can pay their rent to the court rather than to the landlord, and ask the court to order 14 the landlord to make repairs. The following are the rules and procedures for rent escrow which must be strictly followed. A tenant may wish to speak with a private attorney or legal aid office for advice before proceeding. As stated earlier, the housing inspector can order the landlord to make repairs if there are violations of the housing maintenance code. It is important to contact the inspector and get a copy of the order. If the repairs are not made within the time the inspector orders, a tenant can deposit rent with the court administrator along with a copy of the notice of code violation Even if there is no housing maintenance code in the tenant's area, Minnesota law provides that the landlord has an obligation to keep the dwelling fit to live in and in good repair. Under the law, if an apartment or house has so many serious repair problems that it is unlivable, or if the landlord has violated the written or oral lease, the tenant must notify the landlord in writing. It is very important that the tenant keep a copy of that notice. If the problem is nol corrected within fourteen days, then the tenant can deposit rent with the court administrator along with a copy of the notice to the landlord. To file a rent escrow action, a tenant needs to pay to the court administrator all rent that is due. There is a small filing fee, but the ad- ministrator can waive the fee if the tenant cannot pay it. The tenant must give the ad- ministrator a copy of the inspector's order or the tenant's notice to the landlord. The tenant should estimate how much it will cost him or her to make the repairs. The tenant must also give the administrator the landlord's narne and 15 address. The administrator will help a tenant complete a rent escrow petition. Once the rent has been deposited with the court, the court administrator will schedule a hearing, which will be within ten to fourteen days. In most cases, the court will notify the landlord of the hearing by mail. However, if fixing the housing violation will cost more than the conciliation court limit (cun'ently $4,000), then a tenant needs to have someone (other then the tenant) give the notice of hearing to the landlord. A sheriffcan deliver the notice. The landlord can take action to evict the tenant if the tenant does not deposit the full amount of rent in escrow. After the heating, if the tenant proves that a violation exists, the judge may do any of the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 6) Order the landlord to fix the problem. Allow the tenant to make the repairs and deduct the cost from the rent. Appoint an administrator tocollect rent and order repairs. Return all, none, or part of the rent to the tenant. Order that future rent be paid to the court or that the rent be abated (elimi- nated or reduced), until repairs are made, or that part of the rent be abated or refunded. Fine the landlord. If the tenant does not prove that there is a housing violation, or if the tenant does not deposit the full amount of rent with the court, 16 then the money and deposit will be given to the landlord. NOTE: A tenant needs to follow the oth,' terms of his or her lease, even when he or s, pays rent into court. Withholding Rent Tenants may withhold rent if there is a serious repair problem or code violation. Before with- holding rent, the tenant should first: l) 2) 3) 4) Notify the landlord, preferably in writing, of the needed repairs (both parties should keep a copy) and give the landlord a chance to make them. If the landlord does not make the re- pairs, notify the housing, health,energy, or fire inspector (if there is one). Get a written copy of the inspector's report. If the repairs are still not made, notify the landlord in writing that all or a part of the rent will be withheld until the repairs are made. If a tenant decides to withhold rent, he or she should be prepared to defend that action in court. It is very likely that the landlord will either sue for return of the rent or will begin eviction proceedings. But a landlord cannot retaliate (strike back) by filing an eviction notice or action because the tenant withheld rent or otherwise exercised his or her legal rights. (See page 34 for more information about retaliatory landlord conduct.)The ten- ant must not spend the withheld rent money. The tenant must bring the money to court when he or she is summoned. Tenants who do not 17 31'7 bring their money to court may not have their defenses heard and can be evicted. If the court decides the tenant's argument is valid, it can do any number of things. It may, for instance, order the rent be deposited with the court until the repairs are madei or it may reduce the rent in an amount equal to the extent of the disrepair. On the other hand, if the tenant loses, he or she will have to pay all or part of the rent withheld plus court costs. In some cases, the tenant may have to pay the landlord's attorneys fees to avoid being evicted, but only if the lease allows this. Using the Tenant's Remedies Act Under the Tenant's Remedies Act, a tenant can sue for: 1) 3) A health or housing code violation. A violation of the landlord's obliga- tion to keep the rental unit in reasonable repair. A violation of an oral or written rental agreement or lease. Before going to court under this act, a tenant should talk to the landlord about the needed repairs and try to get the landlord to fix them. If the landlord does not, after a reasonable time, the tenant should: l) 2) Notify the local housing, health, en- ergy, or fire inspector, if there is one available. Get a written copy of the inspector's report. This will describe the problem 18 3) and allow the landlord a certain num- ber of days to repair it. If no inspector has been used, thc tenant must inform the landlord in writing of the repair problem at least 14 days before suit is filed. Wait for the required time to pass, and then, if the repair work has still not begun or progressed, bring suit in district court. Once in court, a tenant must produce evidence that the prob- lem exists (and should submit a copy of the inspector's report if there is one). The tenant mu st also explain how the problem can be resolved. Rent Abatement Before suing for rent abatement (reduction), the tenant should try to get the landlord to make the repairs. Only after it appears that the repairs won't be made and further requests seem fruitless should the tenant try to bring a legal action for rent abatement. The tenant should then be prepared to prove: 1) 2) 3) The existence ora serious condition(s) affecting safety, health orthe fitness of the dwelling as a place to live. That the landlord was notified or knew or should have known of the defective condition(s). That the landlord failed to repair it, or repair it adequately, after having a rea- sonable time to do so. Although it is unclear under present Minne- sota law how the amount of rent reduction 19 ,,231g (damages or money) should be determined, the tenant may be able to recover either: 1) 2) The difference in value between the condition the rental unit would have been in had the landlord met his or her legal duty to make repairs and the actual condition of the dwelling with- out the repairs. The extent to which the tenant's use and enjoyment of the dwelling has been decreased because of the defec- tive conditions. The tenant may sue for rent reduction in con- ciliation court if the amount involved is not greater than the maximum amount the con- ciliation court has jurisdiction to decide. If the tenant's claim exceeds the maximum concili- ation court amount, the suit for rent reduction would have to be brought in district court or be reduced to the jurisdictional limit ofconcil iation court. (Currently, claims of up to $4,000 can be decided in conciliation court. The tenant may wish to call the conciliation court serving his or her county to check the maximum juris- dictional amount before filing a claim.) DEFENSE The tenant living in bad rental housing can also use the landlord's failure to make necessary repairs as a defense to: 1) 2) The landlord's Unlawful Detainer (eviction) action based on nonpayment of rent. The landlord's suit for unpaid rent. Again, the tenant should be prepared to 20 show that the landlord was notified or knew or should have known about the defective conditions, but failed to repair them despite having a reasonable chance to do so. Neighborhood Organizations A neighborhood organization is an incorporated group in a specific geographic area that is formed to promote community safety, crime prevention, and housing quality.in a non-dis- criminatory manner. A neighborhood orga- nization can act on behalf of a tenant with his or her written permission, or they can act on behalf of all tenants in a building with a majority of the tenants' permission. In most situations, a neighborhood organization acts much like a tenant. They can: 1) Call for an inspection of a building about which they have zoning concerns. 2) Take to court the owner ora building in which a housirig violation may exist. 3) Act against an unoccupied building in their geographic area. Ifa violation is found to exist, a judge can rule in favor of the tenant(s) and/or the neighbor- hood organization and, among other options, can order the owner to properly maintain the building with regard to all housing codes, under the court's jurisdiction, for up to one year. Additionally, the court can rule against the owner of the building for reasonable attorney's fees, not to exceed $500. The court may appoint a neighborhood orga- nization as the designated administrator for a 21 ,,23'1"/ building as a result of legal action. When this happens, the administrator may collect rent, contract for materials and services to remedy violations, and perform other duties as outlined by the court. Condemned Dwellings A landlord is prohibited from renting property that is unsuitable for occupancy. The landlord may not accept rent or a security deposit for residential rental property that has been con- demned ordeclared by a state or local authority to be unfit for human habitation. The landlord is liable to the tenant for actu damages as well as three times the amount of all money collected from the tenant after the date the property is condemned or declared unfit by state or local officials. This includes courtcosts and attorney's fees. Actual damages can include items such as moving expenses, temporary lodging and other moving costs. ENDING THE TENANCY PROPER NOTICE When the landlord or tenant ends the tenancy, he or she must abide by both the terms of the lease and by state law. The notice requirements for periodic and term tenancies, however, are different. For Periodic Tenancies If there is no provision in the lease stating how much advance notice must be given to end the tenancy, the law says that written notice must 29. be received by the other party at least one full rental period before the tenancy's last' day. This means the day before thc last rent pay. ment is due. For example, if a tenant who pays rent on the first day of each month (a month-to-month periodic tenancy) wishes to leave at the end of June, he orshe must inform the landlord of that fact in writing on or before May 31. This is because May 31 is one day before the June rental period begins. No matter when during June the tenant actually leaves, he or she is responsible for the entire month's rent. If the tenant misses the proper notice deadline-- even by a day--he or she is liable for paying an extra month's rent (July in this case). The proper notice provision holds true for the landlord as well. If the landlord wants to end the tenancy, he or she must give the tenant advance written notice at least one day before that last rental period begins. If the landlord misses the deadline, the tenancy is automati- cally extended for another month. For Definite Term Tenancies Procedures for ending this kind of tenancy are generally written idto the lease. Tenants under a definite term lease have to pay for the entire term no matter when they leave, unless the landlord agrees to accept new tenants who would take over th~ remaining payments. But some term leases have provisions allowing the tenant to "break" the lease. Often in such cases, the tenant is required to pay a "breaklease" fee--a sum of money and/or the tenant's security deposit. Such fees must be : reasonao~e in amount anct retlect the actual loss the landlord can be expected to suffer if the tenant moves out early. Some definite term leases spell out what kind of notice is needed toend the tenancy when the lease ends. Typically this is a written notice presented 30 to 60 days before the lease ends. Often such a requirement is part of an automatic renewal provision. Automatic renewal means that if the tenant does not give notice, he or she can be held to an additional period of timeI for example, one or two months. But if the automatic renewal is for an extra two months or more, the landlord must give the tenant written notice of this fact calling the tenant's attention to the automatic renewal provision. If the landlord does not, the auto- matic renewal provision cannot be enforced. The renewal notice can be given either per- sonally or by registered or certified mail. It must be received by the tenant 15 to 30 days before the tenant has to give the landlord his or her written notice to vacate. Holdover Tenants If there is no provision in the lease about what happens when the lease ends (for example, there is nothing said about converting the tenancy to a month-to-month tenancy), the lease simply expires and the tenant becomes a "holdover tenant." At this point, unless the landlord agrees to continue the tenancy or a new lease is signed, the landlord can start eviction proceedings at any time and without notice. (See page 29 for the laws covering eviction.) However, once the landlord accepts rent payment from the tenant after the tenancy term runs out, then, by law, the tenancy is automatically renewed for another rental pe- riod and it becomes a periodic (usually month- to-month) tenancy. Section 8 A 1989 change in state law requires owners of federally subsidized housing to give their ten- ants a one year written notice if: 1) 2) 3) A Section 8 contract for the housing will expire. (See explanation of Sec- tion 8 below.) The owner decides to end or not renew participation in the Section 8 program. The owner will prepay a mortgage or otherwise terminate a housing subsidy program. If the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant begins less than one year before any of the above conditions will happen, the owner must give the required written notice to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 8 is a federal rent assistance progra that provides rent subsidy payments for low- income families renting privately-owned housing. Under Section 8, a monthly rent sub- sidy payment is made to the owner and the tenant pays no more than 30 percent of the tenant's income toward rent. For more infor- mation on Section 8 and other housing subsidy programs, contact the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, (612) 370- 3000, or the local public housing authority listed in the telephone directory. 24 25 ~ r~l~.~. IJA~ l~Ul ICE Interest DURING WINTER Tenants who arc going to be permanently leaving their units between November 15 and April 15 must tell their landlord they arc va- cating at least three days before they move out. This is so the landlord can take step~ to make sure the pipes don't freeze. Failure to notify is a misdemeanor. The only exceptions to this are cases where thc unit's pipes are not subject to freezing or where thc tenantis leaving on thc day the tenancy is supposed to end anyway. REFUND OF THE SECURITY DEPOSIT At the end of the tenancy, a landlord must return a tenant's security deposit plus 5.5 percent simple interest, or give the tenant a written explanation as to why the deposit (or any part of the deposit) will not be returned. The landlord must do this within 21 days after the day the tenancy ends and the tenant has given the landlord a forwarding address. If the landlord does not, he or she must pay as a penalty a sum equal to the amount of the deposit withheld, plus interest. In addition, the landlord must return the portion of the deposit wrongfully withheld, plus interest. Minnesota law allows a landlord to withhold from a security deposit only the amount necessm'y for unpaid rent, damages to the rental unit beyond ordinary wear and tear, or other money the tenant owes to the landlord under an agree- ment. Interest begins on the first day of the month following the full payment of the deposit. Interest runs to the last day of the month in which the landlord returns the&posit. In those cases where tenants have sued to recover a withheld deposit, interest would run to the day the judgment is entered in favor of the tenant. Taking the Matter to Courl If a tenant does not get the deposit back or is unsatisfied with the landlord's explanation, the tenant can take the matter to court, usually to conciliation court. There, it is up to the landlord to justify his or her actions. If the judge decides the landlord knew he or she was acting wrongly to withhold the money (that's called "bad faith"), the tenant can be awarded up to $200 in punitive damages. If a landlord has failed to provide a written explanation, according to law, he or she must return the withheld deposit within two weeks after the tenant has filed a complaint in court, or the court will presume the landlord is acting in "bad faith." One other thing: The law forbids tenants to use their security deposits to pay the rent. Those tenants who do may be taken to court and may have to pay the landlord the amount of the rent withheld plus a penalty. However, before the landlord can take any tenant to court, he or she must give that tenant a written demand for the rent and a notice that it is illegal to apply the security deposit to the last payment period of the rental agreement. 26 27 OTHER IMPORTANT LAWS HOUSING COURTS A 1989 Minnesota law established housing courts in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties on a three year pilot project basis. These housing courts hear and decide criminal and civil cases related to residential rental housing, including, for example, claims for rent abatement, rent escrow proceedings, eviction actions, claims for unpaid rent, and actions for violations of state, county or city health, safety, housing, building or fire prevention laws. The purpose of the housing courts is to bring housing claims before a single, trained referee in order to encourage consistent decisions and prompt compliance with Minnesota's housing laws by landlords and tenants. Ramsey and Hennepin County District Courts appoint a referee to hold hearings and make recommended decisions. After the hearing in each case, the referee's recommended find- ings and orders are sent to the district court judge in writing. These findings and orders become the findings and orders of the court when confirmed by the district judge. The landlord or tenant can ask for a review by the district court judge of any recommended order or finding of the referee by filing and serving (providing to the other party) a notice within ten days of the recommended order or finding. This notice must explain the reasons for asking for review, and state the specific parts of the recommended findings or order that are dis- puted. After receiving this notice, a time for the review hearing will be set. And after the hearing, thc district court judge will decide whether to accept, reject or change the referee's recommended decision. This three year experimental housing co,n ect will end on July 1, 1992, unless legislature decides to continue it. Hennepin Ramsey County landlords and tenants are encouraged to use the housing courts to resolve housing related disputes that they cannot work out themselves. EVICTION Unlavfful Detainer Actions With proper written notice, a landlord can end a month-to-month tenancy at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the landlord is retaliating against the tenant or illegally discriminating. (See pages 34 and 40 for definitions of these terms.) Definite term leases can only be ended according to the notice specified in the lease, or ff there has been a significant breach of the lease. But in no instance can landlords forcibly ,- move their tenants. In order to evict, a landl must hrst bring an "Unlawful Detainer" action against the tenant. This is a legal proceeding conducted before a district court. To bring such an action, however, the landlord must show cause (have a legitimate reason). Ac- cording to state law, legitimate reasons can be nonpayment of rent, or other breach of the lease, or cases where the tenant has refused to leave after notice to vacate has been properly served and the tenancy's last day has passed. 28 29 g,3:23 There are a number of steps both landlords and tenants must take in an Unlawful Detainer action: 1) 2) 3) The landlord must file a complaint against the tenant in district court. The landlord mu st then have someone serve the tenant with a summons (at least seven days before the court date) or- dering the tenant to appear in that court. A court hearing must take place within seven to 14 daYs after the court issues the summons. At the hearing, both tenant and landlord will be asked to give their respective sides of the story. The judge will then deliver his or her decision. If the judge decides that the tenant has no legal reason for refusing to leave or pay the rent, the .judge will order the tenant to vacate and, if nec- essary, will order the.sheriff to force the tenant out. If the tenant can show that immediate eviction will cause substantial ha,'dship, however, the court shall allow the tenant a reasonable pe- riod of time--up to one week-- which to move. It should be understood that only a sheriff or sheriff's deputy can physically evict a tenanL The landlord cannot do it on his or her own. A "Writ of Restitution"--which is issued at the time the decision is handed down--must be posted on the premises at least 24 hours before the actual eviction. The sheriffcan show up to perform the eviction anytime after the 24 hours has expired. 30 Storage of Personal Property When the sheriff performs the eviction, the tenant's remaining, property must either be stored on the premises or placed in storage in a bonded warehouse or other suitable storage place. In cases where the tenant's property will be stored on the premises, the landlord must prepare an inventory that is signed and da the presence of a peace officer. A copy of the inventory must be mailed to the tenant at his or her last known address, or to an address pro- vided by the tenant. The inventory must include the following: 1) 2) 3) A listing of the items of personal prop- erty, and a description of the condition of that property. The date, the signature of the landlord, and the name and telephone number of the person authorized to release the property. The name and badge number of the peace officer. The officer must keep a copy of the inventory. The landlord is responsible for the proper re- moval, storage and care of the defendant's personal property, and is liable for damages to, or loss of, the tenant's personal property if the landlord fails to exercise care in regard to that property. The landlord should notify the tenant of the date and approximate time the officer is sched- uled to remove the tenant and his or her per- sonal property from the premises. The notice should be sent by first class mail. The landlord 31 anoum also ma~e a good faith effort to notify the tenant by telephone, explicitly informing him or her that the tenant and his or her property will be removed from the premises if the tenant has not vacated by the specified date and time of the notice. According to Minnesota law, this provision may not be waived or modified by any oral or written lease or other agreement. To Get the Property Back In cases where the tenant's personal property is stored on the premises, the tenant need only contact the landlord in writing to demand return of the property. In cases where the tenant's property is to be stored away from the premises (at a bonded warehouse or other suitable storage place) the landlord has a lien (legal claim) on the tenant's Personal property for the reasonable costs of removing, transporting, and storing the prop- erty. The landlord can enforce his or her lien by keeping the property until the landlord's ex- Penses are paid. Regardless of whether the tenant's property is stored on or away from the premises, the tenant, to get the property back, does not have to pay any unpaid rent, security deposit, or late charges. The landlord can sue the tenant in court for these items. Tenants who lose Un- lawful Detainer actions, however, do have to pay court costs. If the Unlawful Detainer has been brought because the tenant has not paid the rent, and the 32 landlord wins, the tenant may pay the back rent plus costs and still remain in possession of the unit, provided payment is made before posses- sion of the rental unit is delivered to the land- lord. If the Unlawful Detainer has been brought because the tenant has withheld the rent because of disrepair, and the tenant wins, the judge may order that the rent be abated (reduced), in part or completely. Eviction for Manufacture and Sale of Drugs Every oral or written residential lease now includes a promise by the tenant not to make, sell, possess, or allow illegal drugs on the premises. A tenant violating this loses the right to possession and the landlord may file to evict without giving one rental period's notice. If illegal drugs or contraband totaling more than $100 are seized from the property, the landlord, on being notified, has fifteen days to file to evict the tenant, or to assign the county attorney that right. Landlords receiving notice of a second such occurrence involving the same tenant are subject to forfeiture of the property unless they have filed to evict the tenant or have assigned the county attorney that right. Forfeiture of the property may occur if the value of the con- trolled substance is $1,000 or more or there have been two previous controlled substance seizures involving the same tenant. A tenant has a defense against eviction if he or she has no knowledge or reason to know about 33 the drugs or contraband, or could not prevent them from being brought onto the premises. A landlord has a defense if he or she was not notified of the seizure or had made every reasonable attempt to evict a tenant ?r to assign the county attorney that right. Seizure of Property Unlawful sale or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol within a building, repeated seizures of illegal drugs within a building, or repeated arrests for illegal drug offenses within a build- ing are now a public nuisance. A city attorney, county attorney, or the attorney general may file an abatement action against a landlord, and if the nuisance is not corrected, ask the court to seize the building. RETALIATION A landlord cannot evict a tenant or end a tenancy in retaliation for the tenant's "good faith" attempt to enforce his or her rights (i.e., the tenant sincerely believes that he or she is acting within the law). Neither can a landlord respond to such an attempt by raising the tenant's rent, cutting services, nor otherwise adversely changing the rental terms. Ifa tenant has, for instance, reported the landlord to a governmental agency for violating health, safety, housing, or building codes, the land- lord cannot try to "get even" by evicting the tenant. Ifa landlord starts an eviction action by giving the tenant a notice to vacate within 90 days after the tenant has tried to enforce his or her fights, the law presumes that the landlord is 34 retaliating. It will then be up to the landlord to prove the eviction is not retaliatory. But if the lancllorcl's notice to vacate comes more 90 days after a tenant exercises his or her fights, it will be up to the tenant to prove the eviction was retaliatory. These provisions apply even to oral rental agreements. UNLAWFUL EXCLUSIONS AND PROPERTY CONFISCATION It is a misdemeanor for a landlord to physically lock a tenant out of his or her rental unit or otherwise exclude a tenant (for example, by removing locks, doors, or windows from the rental unit) without a court order. A tenant who has been unlawfully locked out may petition the district court to get back in. The petition must: 1) 2) 3) 4) Give a description of the rental unit. Give the owner's name. State the facts that make the lockout or exclusion unlawful. Request that the tenant be given pos- session of the unit. If the court agrees with the tenant, it will order a law enforcement officer to help the tenant get back in. If the court decides that the landlord knew (or should have known) that the lockout or other exclusion was unlawful, the landlord may be ordered by the court to pay the tenant up to triple damages or $500, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney's fees. Also, a landlord cannot cart away or keep a tenant's belongings for nonpayment of rent or other charges. If a tenant finds that his or her landlord has taken the tenant's things, the tenant can get them back by demanding, in writing, that they be returned. The landlord has 24 hours to return them (48 hours if they are somewhere other than the apartment). If they aren't returned, the landlord may be sued in conciliation court where he or she may be ordered, not only to give the property back, but to pay the tenant punitive damages of up to $300 in addition to actual damages (cost of storage, hauling, physical damage, replace. ment, etc.) and reasonable attorney's fees. UTILITY CUTOFFS A landlord may not unlawfully shut off a tenant's utilities. To do so with an intent to make the tenant move out is a misdemeanor. If a landlord has unlawfully cut off utility services, a tenant can sue him or her in court to recover triple damages or $500, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney's fees. How- ever, a tenant may recover only actual dam- ages if: l) 2) 3) In the beginning, he or she had failed to notify the landlord of the interruption of utilities. The landlord, once notified, had had the services reinstated within a rea- sonable time or had made a good faith effort to do so. The cutoff was necessary to repair or correct equipment or to protect the health and safety of the tenants. Tenants, finding themselves cut off, should notify the landlord immediately. If service is 36 not restored within a reasonable time, they should notify a housing inspector (if there is one available). A tenant may bring an emer- gency action in court if thc landlord unlaw- fully cuts off utilities. Loss of Essential Services When a landlord has contracted to pay for utilities but fails to pay and the services are cut off, the tenant or a group of tenants may pay to have the services reconnected and may deduct that payment from their rent. But the tenant(s) must follow certain steps. The tenant must notify the landlord either orally or in writing of the tenant's intention to pay the utility if, after 48 hours, the landlord fails to pay. Under certain circumstances, the notice period can be shorter. For example, if the furnace stops in the middle of winter because of lack of fuel that the landlord was supposed to provide, less than a 48 hour notice should be considered reasonable. The statute states that if the landlord is notified orally, written notice must be mailed or delivered to the landlord within 24 hours after the oral notice. If the utility or service is natural gas, electric- ity, or water, the landlord has not paid and the service remains disconnected, the tenant may pay the amount due for the most recent billing period. If the disconnected service is heating oil or propane, and the service has not been reconnected, the tenant may order and pay for a one-month supply. If this problem occurs, the tenant should ob- tain receipts, give them to the landlord and keep copies for his or her records. After pro- 37 riding receipts to the landlord, the tenant may deduct from his or her next rental payment the amount paid to restore these utility services. By law, any payments made to a utility pro- vider in this manner must be considered the same as rent paid to the landlord. Utilities include natural gas, water, electricity, home heating oil and propane. This law ap- plies to all utility providers, including munici- palities and cooperatives that in most cases are not regulated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The utility cannot collect payment from the tenant of the landlord's old bills. Also, the utility may not refuse service to a tenant due to the landlord's failure to pay old bills. COLD WEATHER RULE Tenants and landlords alike should know that no regulated utility company in Minnesota (not all are regulated) can shut off the service of any owner- or tenant-occupied residence between October 15 through April 15 if: 1) 2) 3) 4) The disconnection would affect the primary heat source. The customer is unable to pay the bill. The customer has no overdue bills from the previous October 15 (or, if there was an overdue bill, the customer had arranged with the utility to repay it). The customer is willing to start paying off his or her delinquency in amounts agreed to by both the customer and the utility. 38 New rules adopted by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission provide additional pro- tection from shut-off by regulated utilities during winter months. Thc rules allow cus- tomers to avoid disconnection by paying only 10 percent of their monthly income or their current utility bill each month, whichever is less. For example, if a customer's monthly income is $400 and their monthly bill is $80 the customer would only have to pay $40 (10 percent of $400) per month to avoid discon- nection. Thc rule also allows a customer reconnection by paying 10 percent of one- twelfth of annual income, each month. Utili- ties are prohibited from assessing a deposit or delinquency charge to qualifying customers. The cold weather rule prohibits disconnection if the customer demonstrates an "inability to pay." Eligibility is determined by income, willingness to accept a payment schedule and the customer's timeliness of paying bills dur- ing the summer months. The rules expand income eligibility to 185 percent of the federal poverty level, which currently equals about $12,000 per year for one person, and continue to apply only be- tween October 15 and April 15 of each year. Contact your utility provider if you want to take advantage of this program. For questions on eligibility or terms of these cold weather protections, or to apply for pro- tection under the cold weather rule, contact your local utility or the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, Consumer Complaint Division, Room 780 American Center Build- ing, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55101; (612) 296-7126. TENANT'S RIGHT TO A TAX CREDIT Minnesota law gives tenants (depending on income and amount of rent paid) a partial refund for the property taxes they pay directly or indirectly through their rent. To be eligible, a tenant must be a renter in a property tax- paying unit. But if the tenant is renting from the government, or a private college, some other person, or other entity not required to pay taxes, he or 'she is not eligible. To claim the credit, the tenant must file with the Minnesota Department of Revenue a property tax refund return form (M-IPR) and include with it a "certificate of rent paid" which the landlord must supply to the renter by Janum'y 31 of each year. If there is a dis- agreement between the tenant and the landlord over how much the tenant can claim, a "Rent Paid" affidavit can be requested from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Credit must be filed with the Department of Revenue by August 31. Questions may be directed to the department at (612) 296-3781. DISCRIMINATION According to Minnesota law, no landlord can legally refuse to sell, rent or lease housing, or have different rental terms, on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, or reliance on public assistance. (But there is an exception to this: an owner or occupier living in a one- family unit may refuse to rent part of the premises on the basis of sex, marital status, disability, or reliance on public assistance.) 40 Likewise, a landlord, for discriminatory rea- sons, cannot decrease services which have been promised in the lease. It is also illegal for landlords to discriminate against people with children. But there are some important ex- ceptions to this prohibition. Landlords can refuse to rent to persons with children when: 1) 2) The vacancy is an owner-occupied house, duplex, triplex or fourplex. The purpose of the building is to pro- vide housing for elderly persons. To qualify for this exemption the housing must: Be provided under a state or federal prgram that is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons. Be intended for and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older. Be intended and operated for occu- pancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit. When this latter circumstance is met, there must also be significant facilities or services de signed to meet the physical or social needs of the elderly (or provide im- portant housing opportunities for the elderly), at least 80 percent of the units must be occupied by one person 55 years of age or older per unit, and there must be the publication of, and adher- ence to, policies and procedures that demonsn'ate an intent to provide such housing. 41 Complaints about discrimination should be t'tled with the Minnesota Department of Hu- man Rights, Bremer Building, St. Paul, MN 55101; (612) 296-5663, or toll free, 1-800- 652-9747. In Minneapolis, St. Paul, and some other localities, such complaints may also be filed with municipal civil, or human rights departments. HANDICAPPED-ACCESSIBLE UNIT Minnesota law now requires that a disabled person, or a family with a disabled family member, must be given priority to handicapped- equipped rental housing. This law provides that if a nondisabled person, or a family that does not include a disabled person, is living in a handicapped-accessible unit, the owner must offer to rent that person or family a non- handicapped-equipped apartment if: 1) 2) A disabled person or a family with a disabled family member who will re- side in the apartment has signed a rental agreement for the handicapped-ac- cessible apartment. A similar non-handicapped-equipped apartment in the same rental housing complex is available at the same rent. LANDLORD DISCLOSURE Landlords must provide their tenants, in writ- ing, with the name and address of: 1) 2) The person authorized to manage the premises. The owner of the premises or his or her authorized agent (the person or entity 49. that will be receiving an), notices or demands).The address should be something more detailed than a post office box number. The disclosure can be inserted in the rental agreement or in the lease orcan be put in some other written form. But it must also be printed or typed and posted by the landlord in some clearly visible place on the premises. The disclosure is important because the tenant must have a way of contacting the landlord or agent when repairs are needed or other prob- lems arise. Also, a landlord cannot take any legal action against a tenant to recover rent or to evict unless the disclosure has been given. Tenants who move out of, or sublet their unit without giving the owner 30 days written no- tice, lose the protection of the disclosure law. SUBLEASING Subleasing means having another person"take over" a tenant's unit by moving into the unit, paying rent and doing all the things the original tenant was supposed to do under the rental agreement. If nothing in the lease says the tenant cannot sublet, then the tenant can sublet. This means that the new tenant takes over the old tenant's duties, including paying the rent. It is best to get these agreements in writing and signed by both. Still, if the new tenant does not pay the rent, or if he or she damages the unit or leaves before the lease is up, the original tenant will be responsible to the landlord for any unpaid rent or damages. The original tenant can sue the new tenant for these costs. 43 Most leases say thc tenant can sublet only if the landlord agrees to it. If the tenant and landlord agree to sublet, it is best to get this agreement in writing. ABANDONED PROPERTY Any personal property a tenant leaves behind after moving out must first be stored by the landlord. The landlord can collect from the tenant all moving and storage costs. Sixty days after the landlord has either received a notice of abandonment, or it has become reasonably apparent that the unit has been abandoned, the landlord may sell or get rid of the property in whatever way he or she wishes. The landlord must make a reasonable effort, however, to contact the tenant at least two weeks before the sale of the items, to let the tenant know they are being sold or disposed of. The landlord must do this either by personally giving the tenant a written notice of the sale or by sending the notice by certified mail (return receipt re- quested) to the tenant's last known address or likely living quarters if that is known by the landlord. The landlord must also post a notice of the sale in a clearly visible place on the premises forat least two weeks before the sale. The landlord may use a reasonable amount of the money from the sale to pay for the costs of removing and storing the property, back rent, tenant-caused damages and other debts the tenant owes the landlord under an agreement. Any amount above these belongs to the tenant, if the tenant has written and asked for it. The landlord may not withhold the tenant's property until the tenant pays any rent that may be owing. If the tenant has asked for his or her property back before the 604ay waiting period and 14-day "notice-of-sale" have expired, landlord must give the property back. It landlord or the landlord's agentdoes not allow the tenant to retake the property after the tenant has written for it, the tenant may sue for a penalty not to exceed $300 plus any damages the tenant suffered plus reasonable attorney's fees. The landlord must return the tenant's property within 24 hours after the tenant's written demand, or 48 hours (not counting the weekends and holidays) if the landlord has moved the tenant's property somewhere other than the apartment building or house. 44 45 2331 WHERE TO GO FOR HELP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minnesota Attorney General's Office 117 University Avenue, Room 124 St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-3353; 1-800-652.9747 Minneapolis Housing Services Office Room 11, City Hall Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 673-3003 St. Paul Housing Information Office 21 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 (612) 298-5591 Dispute Resolution Center 265 Oneida Street St. Paul, MN 55102 (612) 292-7791 North Hennepin Mediation Project 3300 County Road 10 Suite 212 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (612) 561-0033 Mediation Services For Anoka County 1323 Coon Rapids Boulevard Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (612) 755-5300 (Serves Anoka County) Minneapolis Mediation Program 2429 Nicollet Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871-0639 (Serves Minneapolis) West Suburban Mediation Center 32 Tenth Avenue South/t214 Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0005 (Serves western and southern metro suburbs) -- OR-- Minnesota Multi-Housing Assoc. 4250 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 927-8600 St. Cloud Area Multi-Housing Assoc. P.O. Box 1201 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Rochester Apartment Assoc. P.O. Box 576 Rochester, MN 55903 G. Harison Nelson (507) 288-8240 -- OR -- 46 47 Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) 2512 Delaware Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 627-4035 1-800-242-7474 -- OR-- Minnesota Tenants Union 1513 Franklin Avenue East Minneapolis, MN 55404 (612) 871-7485 St. Paul Tenants Union 500 Laurel St. Paul, MN 55102 (612) 221-0501 Duluth Tenants Union 206 West Fourth Street Room 212 Duluth, MN 55806 (218) 722-6525 --OR-- Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services Administrative Office: 700 Minnesota Building 46 East Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 228-9823 Local Offices: St. Paul: 300 Minnesota Building 46 East Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 228-5863 (voice and TDD) 1-800-326-1754 (Serves Dakota, Goodhue, Ramsey and Wash- ington counties) Native American Outreach: 811 1/2 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 (612) 222-0690 Immigration Reform Project: 179 East Robie Street St. Paul, MN 55107 (612) 291-0110 1-800-223-1368 Albert Lea: 139 East Williams #243 Albert Lea, MN 56007 (507) 377-2831 1-800-223-0280 (Serves Faribault, Freeborn, Mower and Steele counties) Mankato: 410 Jackson Street #450 P.O. Box 3304 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 387-5588 TDD: (507) 387-2321 (Serves Blue Earth, Brown, Martin, McLeod, Nicollet, LeSueur, Sibley, Waseca and Watonwan) 48 49 ,$33 16174 Main Avenue Northside: Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 440-1040 (Serves Carver, Scott, and Rice counties) Winona: P.O. Box 1266 Winona, MN 55987 (507) 454-6660 (voice and TDD) 1-800-372-8168 (voice and TDD) (Serves Dodge, Fillmore, Houston, Olmsted Wabasha and Winona counties) Worthington: 926 Fifth Avenue Worthington, MN 56187 (507) 372-7368 1-800-233.0023 (SerVes Redwood, Cottonwood, Jackson, Nobles, Rock, Pipestone and Murray counties) Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis Downtown: 430 First Avenue North #300 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1780 (612) 332-1441 TDD: (612) 332-4668 (Serves Hennepin County) Southside: 2929 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 827-3774 TDD: (612) 827-1491 (Serves South Minneapolis) 2507 Fremont Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612) 377-2566 (612) 522-6636 (voice and TDD) (Serves North and Northeast Minneapolis) Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance Willmar: 316 S.W. Becker Avenue Willmar, MN 56201-3398 (612) 235-9600 (612) 235-9602 (TDD) 1-800-622-4011 (Serves Big Stone, Chippewa, Kandiyohi, Meeker, Renville and Swift counties) Cambridge: Route 5, Box 21 East Side Plaza, East Highway 95 Cambridge, MN 55008 (612) 689-2849 (612) 427-4613 1-800-622-7772 (Serves Chisago and Isanti counties: also Pine, Kanabec and Mille Lacs for senior citizens) Little Falls: 62 1/2 East Broadway Little Falls, MN 56345 (612) 632-5431 1-800-622-7774 (Serves Todd, Morrison counties) and Mille Lacs 50 51 Marshall: 244 West Main Street Marshall, MN 56258 (507) 537-1588 (voice and TDD) 1-800-622-7771 (Serves Lincoln, Lyon, Yellow Medicine and Lac Qui Parle counties) Montevideo: Community Service Building Suite 305 719 North Seventh Street Montevideo, MN 56265 (612) 269-6857 St. Cloud: St. Cloud Area Legal Service 830 West St. Germain Suite 300 St. Cloud, MN 56302 (612) 253-0121 1-800-622-7773 (voice and TDD) (Serves Benton, Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties) Legal Aid Service of Northeastern Minnesota Administrative Office: Duluth: 424 West Superior Street #302 Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 726-4800 1-800-622-7266 (Serves South St. Louis, Carlton, Cook, Lake, and Koochiching counties) Local Offices: Pine City: 235 South Sixth Street Pine City, MN 55063 (612) 629-7166 (Pine and Kanabec counties) Virginia: Olcott Plaza 820 North Ninth Street #150 Virginia, MN 55792 (218) 749-3270 (Serves North St. Louis county) Brainerd: 222 Laurel Street Brainerd, MN 56401 (218) 829-1701 1-800-933:1112 (Serves Cass, Crow Wing and Aitkin counties) Grand Rapids: 200 First Avenue N.W. Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (218) 326-6695 (Serves Itasca county) 52 Northwest Minnesota Legal Services Moorhead: 403 Center Avenue//403 P.O. Box 714 Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 233-8585 1-800-452.3625 (Serves Becket, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Otter Tail, Pennington, Polk, Pope, Red Lake, Roseau, Stevens, Traverse, Wadena and Wilkin counties) Bemidji: P.O. Box 1883 Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 751-9201 1-800-642_6836 (Serves Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Lake of the Woods, and Mahnomen counties) Anishinabe Legal Services Box 157 Cass Lake, MN 55633 (218) 335-2223 1-800-422.1335 (Serves Indian and non-Indian residents of Leech Lake, Red Lake, and White Earth Res- ervations) Judicare of Anoka County 1201 89th Avenue N.E. Suite 310 Anoka, MN 55434 (612) 783-4970 (Serves Anoka County) ABOUT THIS BOOKLET The rights and duties of landlords and tenants in Minnesota are spelled out in state statutes, local ordinances, safety and housing codes, and in a number of court decisions. Landlord and tenant responsi- bilities tend to vary from place to place around the state. Certain rights and re- quired duties apply to landlords and ten- ants everywhere in Minnesota. This booklet will attempt to explain these rights. This booklet should not be looked to as a final source of legal advice to be used in resolving specific landlord-tenant problems or questions. It is a summary of the laws that govern the landlord-tenant relationship. Tenants in federal housing and other forms of subsidized housing have additional rights under federal law not covered in this booklet. Those tenants should check their leases for this information. Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 504.22) requires landlords to notify tenants that this booklet is available to them. §4 55 Additional Consumer Information Brochure Titles Available from the Attorney General's Office: C~ C} Buying a New Car Collection Agencies Conciliation Court Constructive Complaining A Debtor's Guide to Garnishment The "Environmentally Friendly" Consumer Fast Food Facts Hassle-Free Home Building and Remodeling Health Clubs: Do It Right Home Solicitation Sales Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities The Line on Credit Cards Manufactured Home Park Tenants: Rights and Duties Minnesota's Lemon Law Minnesota's Used Car Warranty Law (And How to Buy a Used Car) Pyramid Schemes Seniors' Legal Rights The Truth-In-Repairs Act Utility Shutoffs To receive any of these brochures, contact the Attorney General's Consumer Division: 117 University Avenue, Room 124, St. Paul, MN 55155; (612) 296-3353, or, 1-800-652-9747. Revised 1991 56 3.33'3 July 14, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 14, 1992 1.5 ASE 92-019:GEORGE & CHERY FOUGERON 701 BAYWOOD _LANE LOT BLOCK REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES PID 13-11 -24 21 0087 I E - DECK E NSION The Building Official explained that this was reviewed at the June 23, 1992, Council Meeting, but because the setbacks were not consistent with the original review by the Planning Commission, it was referred back to the Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted 2 options for consideration by th~ Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommendation is for approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot and the addition of a deck is a reasonable use of the property. The applicant does have the option of an on-grade detached deck from the dwelling but wanted to have the deck conveniently located to their existing patio doors. The applicant was on vacation and not able to attend the meeting. The applicant asked if the Council was going to deny Option A, they would appreciate tabling a decision until they can be appear before the Council. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 4 on a motion for denial so there was no recommendation. , The Council discussed alternatives that the Planning looked at and minimums to alleviate the hardship. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to table Case #92- 019, to a future meeting when the applicant can be present (either July 28 or August 11). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CIT ' ()f ,X IOUND July 15, 1992 George and Cheryl Fougeron 1701 Baywood Lane Mound, MN 55364 suBJECT: City Council Action to Table Variance Request Case #92-019 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fougeron: The city Council reviewed your variance request at the July 14, 1992 meeting, and after discussion decided to table the issue until such time that you may attend the meeting and have an opportunity for your opinion to be heard. I have also included a copy of the Planning Commission minutes that details their action regarding your case. You are tentatively scheduled for the July 28, 1992 City Council Agenda. If you have any questions, please contact me. Rospocll~ J~Su~her-fIand Building official JS:pj Enclosure printed on recycled paper July 14, 1992 HIHUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 14v 1992 1.5 CASE 9 -019:GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGBRON 1701 BAYWOOD ~ LOT 4 LOC REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES PID 13-11 -24 I 0087 V~RIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official explained that this was reviewed at the June 23, Council Meeting, but because the setbacks were not was referred back to the Planning Commission. The applicant has now submitted 2 options for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommendation is for approval of option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot and the addition of a deck is a reasonable use of the property. The applicant does have the option of an on-grade detached deck from the dwelling but wanted to have the deck conveniently located to their existing patio doors. The applicant was on vacation and not able to attend the meeting. The applicant asked if the Council was going to deny Option A, they would appreciate tabling, a decision until they can be appear before the Council. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 4 on a motion for denial, so there was no recommendation. The Council discussed alternatives that the Planning looked at and minimums to alleviate the hardship. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to table Case ~92- 019, to a future meeting when the applicant can be present (either July 28 or August 11). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~ZN~?B8 OF HOUND ADVZ8oR¥ PLAN~ZNG COMMZBSZOM JULy 13, X992 B GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERO~ p~DO! ~YWOOD LANB LO, 4 The applicant was not Present. Staff reviewed the background of the Case. The referred this case back to the Planning CommiSsion at on June 23, 1992 d rzann' -',w consxs . "q~ setback meeting lng Commission tent w~th th __~ ~ revealed bu - - · e ur~glnal re_~ z q new Two_ options for co-_~ .... ¥~ew by the applicant Prefe-- - ~u~uction of a for the -~ ~ option A ..... deck Were -~ . ~=e rather th~, ~'~ it appears to ~nmltted. The .... uP=~on B. ~ .... be the most d apparent in this case, the -u~ cO Dr ~ .... c~rable appears reasonable to staff, feet of encroachment additional 5 ~uicy !afl ~econunended approval of O ' Z~h~f;rhoe_Jr°~, that the addit~Pot~%~ ~.ba~ed on the o . consiStent~/.:~Y,, a~d that the -'.~'-~;.~ne deck is a __rd shape and · '", ~onlng Code Sec?;~Y~Pg of the var;Y~Ynable Use ~ueller .u ..... -~- z~.S06.~. -=,,~e wOuld be function · ~ ~z comments r~llOWZng a _ . =~ Should be ~"~ request is ' -~ .~s not a Mueller questioned if a variance is also re setback to the sOUth Side believes this property i.P~o~e~ty line. Koe.~- ed for the 9.05, Side yard Setback for 1 . ~ ~o ~ ~o~ of record w~:~[ ~.mmented that he yard setbacu ~_ _ ets 80 - 10^ . _ .. ~,, axiows for an 8' str ~ x~ conformtn u £eet Wade t uctures on this ~-~ -- g ~t 9.05,. M--~,-] herefore the ~ dre already pushin~~f_o,~.ente~ that .... ~m~:s on hardcover. We/land questioned if _ Building Official did a~.~L~ra~e deck Would be c in~m une ApPlicant, ..... O~formang. The grade'deck CJuld be constructed Without o uun:ractor that an on- the nonconforming status o a variance, deck Would be rev/ewe ~~he .property. but in light of any proposed on-grade an on-grade deck d _~, une City Plan~r. Menus questioned if would block windows, and the BUilding Official confirmed that it Would. The BUilding Official commented that the applicant is not in favor of this option. MO'Z'ZOM made by Weiland. seconded by MUeller t denial of the variance ~aot of find/n-. -- to expand the ~--~ o recommend ~Otion to den~'-~ O~-grade deck oou~V~_as re.quested. .... vu, --a,~s. Meyer and ~:~' ,nos, Opposed This case Will be heard by the City Council on July ~4, 1992. CITY of MOUND 534', IdAYWOOD ROAD i*dOUh;D MINNESOTA 5536~ 16F}T 6!2 472.~55 FAX,6'2 ,:72'2{2~ STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: July 9, 1992 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official A~ Variance Request George & Cheryl Fougeron CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 92-019 1701 Baywood Lane Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores R-1 single Family Residential BACKGROUND The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of this request at the June 23rd meeting, and the Council originally passed the Planning Commission's recommendation. After this occurred, it was discovered in a conversation between the applicant and the Building official that the as-built survey had been submitted, but was not in the packet for staff or city Council review. The applicant had a copy in her possession and this case was again reviewed by the Council. Due to the actual setbacks not being consistent with the original review by the Planning Commission, the City Council rescinded Resolution 92-72 and referred this case back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Staff met with the applicant on June 24, 1992 to discuss and review this case and the applicant has now submitted two options for the Planning Commission to consider. COMMENTS The conditions that exist with this property are unique being a corner/lakeshore lot with both the house and the lot being of irregular shape. The original placement and design of the house did not plan for future deck expansion in the natural location to printed on recycled paper staff Report Fougeron June 9, 1992 9 2 9.5 CONTOUR provide a view of the lake. The request results in the corresponding variances: ~ Pro~ Variance 50' 37' 13' 929.5 CONTOUR 50' ExIsTING CONDITIONS TO BE RECOGNIZED: LOT FRONTAGE 60' EXISTING DECK 50' EXISTING DWELLING 50' 42' 46'+/- 14' 42'+/- 8' 47'+/- 3' The original layout of Option A is the preferred deck location of the applicant and appears the most desirable for the site rather than Option B which reduces the impact on the required setback. Due to practical difficulty apparent in this case, the additional 5 feet of encroachment appears reasonable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot, that the addition of the deck is a reasonable use of the property, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with Zoning Code Section 23.506.1. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 14 1992 JS:pj , · Enclosure: City Council Minutes of June 23, 1992 June 23, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1992 1.4 AS~A~_f~-9~ GEORGE & CHERYL FOU LOT BLOCK 4 GERON 1701 BA __ REPLAT OF HARRISO _ YWOOD LANE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on at 6a3 vote, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to the building permit issuance. Smith moved and Ahrens RESOLUTION #92-72 seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALAKESHORESETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ON LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID ~13-117- 24 21 00S7, p & ~ CASE #92-019 The Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 ~GEORGE & CHERYL FOUG LOT BLOCK 4 R ERON 1701 BAYWOO EPLAT OF HARRI D LANE The Building Official reported that he has now received the survey from the applicant. The pro osed says 44 feet on P~ ~.^. ~ deck setback to the lake that elevation. The ctually 37 feet to the 929.4 lot width scales at 47 feet, required is 60 feet in the R-1 zone. This is an unusually shaped lot. The applicant had already left the meeting. The Council discussed the difference and thought it should be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to resolution #92-72 due to new inf reconsider the Vote was unanimo ,. ~_ ._ ormation beina received. US*z '- ~avor. Motion carried. The MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to rescind resolution ~92-72 and refer it ba for their review --- .... ck to the Planninm ~na= has been submi,~-~ ___ ~tv- ma~eu o~ tho ne required. The v~-- --~''' .~nq Gouble the v..~..~ s~r~.ey H unanimously in fAv~. .... ng .... · ao~lon carried. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAY~OOD LANE) PID #13-117-24 21 0087 P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-019 WHEREAS, the applicants, George and Cheryl Fougeron, have applied for a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an expansion to the existing non-conforming deck; 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 to Baywood Lane, a 20 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd., and a 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water elevation; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; var~_~WHEREA~, The Planning Commission reviewed xunce ana recommended a r . . the requested Approval was reco .... ~-~ ~p o~al with 6 in favor and 3 mini~~ ~_ _ ~ --,,.~.u~u Dase~ on the fact t~=~ ~- ,~_ ~ an. nanure, that the deck ad~^~ ~- ~ un= request is ~.property, and there exi e~ ~ -- -'h~'~ x~ ~ reasonable use of · s__ = ~act~uul difficulty in the fact nnat there is no other reasonable location f serve the property, or a deck expansion to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an extension to an existing nonconforming deck at 1701 Baywood Lane, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (S) 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. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-019 PAGE 2 e 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 6' x 24' deck extension onto an existing 6' x 47'8" deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. PID #13-117- 24 21 0087. 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 COMMISSION June 8, 1992 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4t BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087. VARIANCE - deck extension. Building Official-, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6 foot lake side setback variance for a deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. The Commission confirmed that the existing deck is nonconforming. Jensen commented that she feels there could be hardship due to the shape of the lot. Mueller remarked that their is room towards the north property, line towards Three Points Blvd. to expand the deck and have it conform to setback requirements. The applicant expressed a need for the deck in the location proposed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael to recommend denial the request for a variance to extend the existing deck. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland and Michael. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, Voss and Jensen. Mueller commented that the home was built in 1983 and unfortunately the builder did not plan for a deck, he does not feel this creates a hardship. Clapsaddle remarked that tighter control is needed on site plans, and now the homeowner is stuck because of poor planning by the builder, it is only fair to allow the deck. Jensen questioned if there is any interest in updating the survey, she is concerned because the survey reflects a "proposed" house rather than an "existing,, house, and it would be nice to know exactly where things are located. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance to allow the deck extension as recommended by staff, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, ross and Jensen. Those opposed were Mueller, Weiland and Michael. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536.4' 1687 (6121 472-1155 FAX (612~ 472-062? DATE: June 4, 1992 TO: FROM; Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official ~~ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: George & Cheryl Fougeron CASE NO. 92-019 LOCATION: 1701 Baywood Lane Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a variance of 6 feet to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback. The property and all other setbacks are currently conforming. The applicant has stated that the existing deck is not practical as there is not enough room for a table and chairs. Alternate locations for a conforming deck expansion do not appear desirable or reasonable due to the location on the lot. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variances request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. This case will be heard by the city Council on June 23, 1992. JS:pj printed on recycled paper 4/2/92 CXT¥ OF ~fOUND $34X Me.coed Road. 14ound. NN 5536 Phone: 472-0500. Fax: 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 Please t~pe or print the following information: Address of Subject Property /70 / ~/%V0Yood Owner's Name o~< , ,%~/. ~-oo~,,~3 Day Phone Owner's Address /70{ ~A~oo2 ~ opplicant's Name (if other than owner).. ~6U~ m~ ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 733 Lot ~ Block Zoning District_~- Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~2'~1~ 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 /1o, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) / SETBACKS: required requested (or existing) Front Yard: (.~ ~W.~)S ~0 ft ~.~ ft. -Rear Yard: (~.~ E~/) I~ ft ft. O .~c~4Lake Front: ( N ,~S E~) ' ft ft. .Side Yard: ( .~N (~)E W ) ;O ft ft. " O Side Yard: (~S E W ) ,ZO ft. ~O ~ ft. Lot Size: sq ft lO .~O~ sq ft o Street Frontage ft. ' ft. VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ~If .o, specify each non-conforming use: To ~r o ~ ~R~ ~o~ 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: 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 · rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. _q2"'0 1q e 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? 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 uired by law. Applicant,s L. ,,! MINUTES OF A MEETINH OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNINH COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CASE ~92-032: KlM AND NICHELE ELIFRITS, 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT 4,. SUBD. LOTS I & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0033. VARIANCE - fence. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to install a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence along the side lot line. Fences are limited to 4 feet in height within the front yard setback, and it is proposed to have approximately 10 feet of the fence within the front yard setback area. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the fence is to screen the adjacent garage, concrete walkway and dog kennel. Due to the intensive development of the area, such a request seems reasonable and could be considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2 foot fence height variance to permit installation of a 6 foot high fence. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, it is further suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. Weiland questioned the conformance of the existing fence which is constructed upon the new deck. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend denial of the fence height variance, and direct staff to investigate the conformity of the existing fencing. Mueller questioned what harm 2 more feet of fencing would cause? Michael commented that practical difficulty or hardship is not prevalent. The applicant commented that they wanted the fence to block storage of materials on the adjacent property, however, that owner has now moved. OTION to deny carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: e~seneyer'. Michael, ,anus. Johnson, Vos,, Weil&nd, and Mueller opposed. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I iH PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Fence Variance APPLICANT: Kim and Michele Elifrits CASE NUMBER: 92-032 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30m LOCATION: 2021 Arbor Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to install a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence along the southern (side) lot line. According to the Zoning Code, such fences are limited to 4 feet of height within the front yard setback area. Approximately 10 feet of the fence will be within the front yard setback area. COMMENT: Arbor Lane is one of the most intensively developed areas in the City of Mound. Front yard areas are tightly enclosed by buildings, decks and other structures. Almost all of the Elifrits' front yard consists of impervious cover in the form of a garage, driveway and deck. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the fence is to screen the adjacent garage, concrete walkway and dog kennel. Due to the intensive development of the area, such a request seems reasonable and could be considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 , Fax: (612) 835-3160 Elifrits Variance June 26,1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2 foot fence height variance to permit installation of a 6 foot high fence. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, it is further suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $$364 Phone= 4?2-0600, Fax: 4?2-0620 Planning Commission Date:_- City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. fl2~05~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Address of Subject Property_~_~l Owner,s Name Owner's Address ~ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) .=SS Day Phone Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Block --' Zoning District ~ Use of Property: ~/'~~ has an application ever been ma~e for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, Oe) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detaile.d descripton of proposed construction or a .' . of stories, type of use, etc ~ · /3~,f~ .~., ~ lter.at.~o,n (slze,..number · ,. ~ ~z - ~IIUC -- f' H/'~^ ..'~-, ' ' ' ~"~ 9_ ~/ _ , . , ~ u crc /~' ~ro~ ~/I~ ~. ~ revieed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. me Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setbac~ 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.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: (N ~S E~W ) Rear Yard: ( N~-7~ W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft. 1,2 ft. 1/ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. 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 ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 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 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~~_~~___ ® Was the. hardship created bM any ot~er man-made ch~n e sUc relocation of a road? Yes ~. ~ ,~ ~ T, ..... g ~ ~ ^ ~ as t ~ Are the cond request a var'ance peculiar only ~o the property described in this petition9 Yes (~, No (). If no, lzst some other properties which are similarl~ affected9 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. / . .: Certificate of Survey'. I horeby certi.fy that this is a true and correct representation of ~ survey of the boundaries of Lot 4, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Llndquist's Ravenswood. Xt does not purport to shcv improvements or encroacbmenta~ but does. shov the pr, oposed location '' 0£ & proposed building.. ;'. · :.'. · · .. , .~, * ..,..... · .~ . · .:?,:' .... .. .~., .:.· ;'.:,'.,~ ~~~ · ~ " · "Gordon H. Coffin Po Sca'la, 1" · 30' ':' ../ ' ' .:.. . Da%e 8 ~-18-70 ,"":: "... <. .."'Land Surveyor and Planner · o 8 'Iron marker...,',.., :.. .... · Long .Lake, ~Xnneso~a. I ' I'... ' " ' , ~' ;. ?, . .....'..: . ..'..;,; · .. ',.,,' . . ,, , /:. '. . ~ '~.' ~. .. ,. ,,. ,, , ,...;. :., . ,,' ; '. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING ADDITION ONTO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING AT LOTS 11 & 28, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO L~KESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 31 0055, 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-033 WHEREAS, Wend~ Brady has applied for a 1.7 foot side yard setback variancet~ allow construction of an addition onto an existing nonconforming dwelling, and; WHEREAS, The existing home has a 4.6 foot side yard setback which is 1.4 feet under the required 6 foot setback. The proposed addition will continue the alignment of the nonconforming side wall resulting in an additional encroachment of approximately .3 feet, and; WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-3 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 6 foot and 10 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval as the addition is consistent with the practical difficulty provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the location of the existing home precludes alternate locations for the proposed improvement resulting in a practical difficulty situation for the property owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a 1.7 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a single story addition (32' x 20') with a small entry deck at 2174 Centerview Lane, upon the following condition: 1. The encroaching fence must be relocated onto the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. 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. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-033 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 single story addition (32' x 20') and a small entry deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 11 and 28, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park. 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 CONIilSSION JULY ~3~ 1992 CASE ~92-033: WENDE BRADY, BLOCK 7, ~n_RA~zdl LINCOLN, addition. 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28, PID ~13-117-24 31 0055. VARIANCE - City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the applicant's request to construct a single story addition (32' x 20') with a small entry deck. The existing home has a 4.6 foot side yard setback which is 1.4 feet under the required 6 foot setback. The proposed addition will continue the alignment of the nonconforming side wall resulting in an additional encroachment of approximately .3 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to construct the proposed addition. The addition is consistent with the practical difficulty provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The approval should be conditioned upon the relocation of the fence onto the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the location of the existing home precludes alternate locations for the proposed improvement resulting in a practical difficulty situation for the property owner. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Wendy Brady CASE NUMBER: 92-033 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30n LOCATION: 2174 Centerview Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct an addition on the east side of the existing home. The addition consists of single story living space measuring 32' by 20' with a small, attached entry deck. At the present time, the existing home has a 4.6 foot side yard setback which is 1.4 feet under the required 6 foot setback. The proposed addition will continue the alignment of the nonconforming side wall resulting in an additional encroachment of approximately .3 feet. COMMENT: In all variance cases, the Planning Commission and City Council must render a finding of either hardship or practical difficulty regarding a nonconforming proposed improvement. Hardship references unique situations such as topography or lot shape and relates to the minimum improvement necessary to alleviate the identified' hardship. Hardship is not directly applicable in this case because conforming options exist for the construction of the proposed addition. land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Brady Variance June 26,1992 Page 2 In order to construct the proposed living space addition in a conforming location, substantial reorientation of the existing structure may be necessary. As proposed, the addition is an extension of the existing home. Due to this fact, the proposed expansion qualifies as a practical difficulty under the code. Therefore, the variance may be warranted providing that it does not significantly impact the adjacent property. Upon receipt of a variance application, all nonconforming aspects of a property are analyzed. When encroachments on other properties are noted, they are usually required to be brought into conformance. In this case, the applicant has a split rail fence marking the front property corners. At the northwest property corner, the fence encroaches onto the neighboring property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to construct the proposed addition. The addition is consistent with the practical difficulty provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The approval should be conditioned upon the relocation of the fence onto the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the location of the existing home precludes alternate locations for the proposed improvement resulting in a practical difficulty situation for the property owner. revised 412192 .,VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Me,wood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No · ~Z~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name ~J~.~q ~~>? Day Phone ~? ?~ 7~ Owner's Address L I?~ o2 pplicant's Name (if other than owner). ddress ~ ~-~/~_~ ~_] ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: /I: / Addition /~- Zoning District /_ //./J~ C/'~I Day Phone Block PID No. /~ ~'~ :~- ~I O0~'--'~'- Use of Property: ~:~c~- ,f-~,~.~.,.~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use ~:~,mi~,is~r d°atthee,rs,ZTsnga P~T~.du. re for.t, his property? ( ) yes, "_~no. If ~ ; pp t~on, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size number of stories, type of use, etc.): ' revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 Case No.~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regul, a~ions 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.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E~) Rear Yard: ( N S~W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: (~ S E W ) Side Yard: ( N~E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) / ~ - ft. ~ ft. - ~ ft. /~-- ft. /// * ft. i.y~.'i ft. -- ft · ,--ft · ~' ~ ft. ;~.~3 ft. . ft. ~O ft. ~ ft. f~t. sq sq ft o< sq E_~ ~;,~O Sxb' ft. ~.~0~ S-~ ' ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regula,~i~ons for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ~. If ~, 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case Was the hardship created by any ~er man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No If yes, explain e Are the conditions of hards.hip for which you request a valance peculiar n°on~Yl~s°ttshoemePro~Ph~tYrod_eeSrC[~eb:d .in .this petition? Yes ~, No ().If P p 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 by law. : ,://, ?/.~/~d.~ ~. Applioant'S Bignatur._//c~- "; Date :-//:- ~: R3 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WENDY BRADY OF LOTS 11 and 28, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots I1 and 28, Block 7, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park This Survey shows the location of an existing house in relationship to the above described property. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. LEGEND: o : iron marker All 'bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. PROPOSED RESOLUTION $92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR LOT 17 AND THAT PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT PID $18-117-23 23 004~, 1943 SHOREWOOD LANE P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-034 WHEREAS, The applicant, Soncor Investments, has applied for a lot area variance to allow construction of a new single family dwelling, 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, The existing lot area is 8,035 square feet which is 1,965 square feet under the required 10 0000 square foot minimum and; ' , WHEREAS, Ail proposed setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, This parcel was created by a subdivision approved by the City Council on October 7, 1985, Resolution #85-121, and included a lot area variance, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds the requested lot area variance consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The request is consistent with actions taken by the City of Mound in 1985 to approve the creation of the subject lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 1,965 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new single family dwelling with conforming setbacks at 1943 Shorewood Lane. 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 new single family dwelling with conforming setbacks. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-034 Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 17 and that part of Lot 16 lying northwesterly of a line described as commencing at the most westerly corner of Lot 17; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 17 and Lot 16, distant 55.05 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence deflecting left 95 degrees 33 minutes 39 seconds distant 110.55 feet to the northeasterly line of lot 16 and there terminating, Block 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, 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 MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVIsORy PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CASE ~92-034 - : 80NCOR INVESTMENT8 1943 SHOREWOOD LANE LOT 17 E PART OF 16 --BLOCK ? SHADYWOOD POINT PID 18-~17-23 23 0041. VARIANCE - sin le famil dwellin . City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a lot area variance in order to construct a new home. -~u=o~ed lot area variance. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds the requested lot area variance consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The request is consistent with actions taken by the City of Mound in 1985 to approve the creation of the subject lot. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. pLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Bonnie Cornell and Ken Larson CASE NUMBER: 92-034 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30o LOCATION: 1943 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a lot area variance in order to construct a new home that will conform to all setback requirements. The existing lot has a total area of 8,035 square feet which is 1,965 square feet under the required 10,000 square foot minimum. COMMENT: The subject lot was created by a subdivision approved by the City of Mound on October 7, 1985. At that time, the subdivision was approved to dean up the area and to allow the incorporation of an undersized tax forfeiture parcel into the adjacent property. The resolution approving the subdivision (85-121) granted the lot area variance. Since construction of a home did not occur within the one year period, the variance approval lapsed. Since the City approved the subdivision and variances in 1985 and since the physical characteristics of the subject lot remains unchanged, approval of the requested variance would be consistent with past actions. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Cornell/Larson Variance June 26,1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested lot area variance. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds the requested lot area variance consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The request is consistent with actions taken by the City of Mound in 1985 to approve the creation of the subject lot. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Haywood Road, Phone: 472-0600, Hound, l~ 5536~-'- Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No .qZ"O~__ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the followlng information: Address ot Subjeot Property / q Owner' s Name ~j ~ ~- ~i/J ~/ES~ /';'~,<./'~"S Day Phone Owner's Address P~ ~'~ Applicant's Name (if other Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 17 ~- Addition Block PID No. / ~//~3 5 Zoning District Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance,~ conditional permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ yes, ( ) no. yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolu=ion number(s) provide copies of resolutions. use If and 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, of stories, type of use, etc.): ! number re~£~ed Variance Application Page 2 Case No..~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setbac~ 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.) SETBACKS: 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: Street Frontage required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ~ ~ ft. ~.?~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. fO ft. /~.~ ft. ft. ! ~ ft. /~.aO ft. ft. Sg ft '79~/ sq ft sq ft ft. ~/.~ ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to allzregulations 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 too small too shallow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 6. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No(/~. If yes, explain such as the 7. 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 required by law. Applicant's Signature Date ,,'/ ,% F PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING NONCONFORMING BIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION LOT 26 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAH LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, MOUND, MINNETONKA PID #13-117-24 32 0021, 2151 CEDAR LANE P&Z CABE NUMBER 92-035 WHEREAS, The applicant, Leonard Koehnen, has applied for a variance to recognizing nonconforming side yard setbacks to allow construction of a conforming addition, and; WHEREAS, The existing 8.8' side yard setback to the north property line results in a variance request of 1.2', and the existing 3.3' side yard setback to the south property line results in a variance request of 2.7', and; WHERE~B, The subject property is located within the R-3 One and Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 30' front yard setback, a 6' and 10' side yard setback for "Lots of record" for lots with a width greater that 60' and less that 80', and a 15' rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the requested side yard setback variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the nonconforming setbacks result from conditions over which the applicant has no control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby recognize the 2.7' and 1.2' side yard setback variance to allow construction of conforming addition at 2151 Cedar Lane. 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: PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE #92-035 PAGE 2 Se e Construction of a 12' x 16' four season porch and a 12' x 14' deck, both at the second floor. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 26 and the south half of Lot 27, Block 2, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, MOUND, MINNETONKA,, 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 COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CASE ~92-035~ LEONARD KOEHNEN, 2151 CEDAR LANE, LOT 26 & 1/2 of 27~ BLOCK 2~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN~ PID ~13-117-24-32 0021. VARIANCE - porch & deck. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance in order to construct a new conforming addition on the west side of the home. The existing home conforms to ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yard setbacks of 3.3 feet and 8.8 feet resulting in variances of 2.7 feet and 1.2 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of recognition of the requested side yard variances in order to construct a conforming addition. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission include the following Finding of Fact in an approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested side yard setback variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the nonconforming setbacks result from conditions over which the applicant has no control. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Holsington Koegler Group ]nc. rnl PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Leonard Koehnen CASE NUMBER: 92-035 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30p LOCATION: 2151 Cedar Lane EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking side yard setback variances in order to construct a new conforming addition on the west side of the home. At the present time, the home has side yard setbacks of 3.3 feet and 8.8 feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires 6 feet and 10 feet for single family homes on lots of record in the R-3 zone. Correspondingly, the requested variances are 2.7 feet and 1.2 feet. COMMENT: The proposed addition conforms to all setback requirements. The existing home conforms to ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yards as noted above. Approval of the requested variances will not intensify the nonconforming aspects of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of recognition of the requested side yard variances in order to construct a conforming addition. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission include the following Finding of Fact in an approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested side yard setback variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the nonconforming setbacks result from conditions over which the applicant has no control. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phons: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~_~~~___ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name ~O~%f>_~ Owner's Address Applicant's Name Address Day Phone (if other than owner) Day Phone ~"~--- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: \ Addition~~~4 /~/~)COL~! ~.~9~ PID No. ;%- //~-Zq ~- ~ Zoning District ~-~ Use of Property: &~~ ~/ ~L~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variant, conditional permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~) yes, ( ) no. ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolhtion number(s) provide copies of resolutions. 7o " use If and of stories, type of use, etc.): Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number revised 4/2/92 Variance Application ~age 2 Case No. ~_~0~-5 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.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S ~,~ ) Rear Yard: ( N S ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( ~S E W ) Side Yard: ( N~E W ) Lot Size: ~ '20 Street Frontage required requested VARIANCE (or existing) ft ~r ft. ~!~ ~ ~ ft. ft. ,, ~ ft. '--- ft. ,--- ~' - ft. q ft. ~' ft. ~ ~d~ ft. ~ sq ft sq ft ~ ft. ?.~-- ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Sq ft ft. Does the present use of the property conform to a.{lz~egulations 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 ( ( ) 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 i~/he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If ~es, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~~ e Was the hardship created by any pt~r man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain such as the Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vgri~,ance 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. ~~p.~ ~ Applicant's .igna~ur., ~ ' Dat. RESOLUTION NO. 86-59 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 26 AND SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID ~13-117-2q 32 0021 (2151 CEDAR LANE) - PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ~86-517 WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard J. Koehnen, owner of property described as Lot 26 and South 1/2 of Lot"27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, PID ~13-117-24 32 0021 (2151 Cedar Lane), have applied for variances and setbacks to the side yards, South and North in order to construct a 20 by 26 foot attached one stQry garage; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" has also been submitted to indicate the requested setbacks of 4 feet to the South lot line and existing setback of 9 feet to the North lot line, and 35 feet to the East property line; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 6 feet to the property line and 10 feet to the property line in R-3 one & two family zoning district for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the setback variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Clty Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does approve the 4 foo~ side lot line variance to the South and recognizes the existing 9 foot setback to the North property line as shown on Exhibit "A" for Lot 26 and South 1/2 of Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside PArk, PID #13-117-24 32 0021 (2151 Cedar Lane), Upon the condition that the wall adjacent within four feet of the South lot line will have 5/8 inch type X sheetrock or .~~~!ied'to the inside of the garage wall with a maximum of a two fobt overhang, and no additions will be constructed in the <~lthout additional City Council. approval. The foregoing.resolution was moved by Councllmember Jessen and 'seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk ~May or 70-88 4-14-?0 RESOLLUTION NO. 70-88 RESOLUTION GRANTING SIDE YARD VARIANCE (Lot 26 & S½ Lot 27, Block ~) (Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lake Side Park) WNRREAS, the owner of Lot 26, & S~ Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park has asked for a side yard variance for a single family dwelling in the Residential B District side yard set back, and WN~S, the Planning Commission has recommended that a variance of Sec. 23.32 Subsection C be granted under Section 26.995, Items 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the sideyard requirements to 7~ feet on each side for a one- story single family dwelling with two-car attached garage, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE ' COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the side-yard variance be granted provided all other require- ments are met. Adopted by the CouncL1 this 14th day of April, 1970. Certificate of Survey for Leonard Koehnen in Lots 26 ~nd 27, Block 2, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, MOUND,.MINNETONKA' Hennepin County, Minnesota Existinq Legal Description Lot 26 and the south half of Lot 27, Block 2, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE.PARK, MOUND, MINNETONKA" This survey shows the location of an existinc house and deck and a ~roposed addition in relation to the b~undaries of the above described property. It does not purport t~ show any other improvements or encroachments. o : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. MOUND ADVISORy PLANNIN~ COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 WILLIAM HIBBS 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD LOT 4 & I 2 OF eT 5 BLOCK I HIGHLANDS PID 23-117-24 42 0014. VARIANCE - re air foundation. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to allow improvements to an existing principal structure. The dwelling is 17' from the front property line resulting in a 13' variance, and there is a detached garage 2 feet from the side property line which received a variance in 1981. The front portion of the structure that encroaches into the required setback area has a number of problems. According to the Building Official,s inspection, the rafters are sagging and appear to be undersized, the foundation has failed on the west side, other sides of the foundation have been covered by a wooden material precluding further inspection, siding is not properly installed, and portions of the interior ceiling have collapsed apparently due to leaks in the roof. Based on the Building Official,s inspection, it appears that the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems. The magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location. Staff recommended denial of the requested variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan for improving the existing home that includes removal of the front portion of the home, remodeling the existing conforming portions of the structure as necessary, and adding additional space to the home in a conforming location on the lot. Upon preparation of such a plan, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage. It was questioned if the structure would meeting the 840 square foot minimum required floor area for a dwelling if the front portion of the home was removed, and it was assumed it would not. Meyer commented that the time to get this structure into conformance is now. The applicant informed the Commission that there is another poured foundation inside the existing foundation, so the structure is not as bad as it may seem. Jon informed the applicant that if the variance is approved, all decayed portions of the foundation would have to be repaired. The applicant commented that he will fix whatever is needed. The applicant,s estimated cost to improve the structure is $6,000. Mueller questioned if the basement ceiling height would be required to be raised. The Building Official replied that it would not have to be raised, but if it does not meeting the minimum height requirement it cannot be considered habitable space and it will reduce the square footage of the dwelling. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weilend to recommend denial of the variance request due to the substandard condition of the dwelling as determined by staff Motion carried unanimously. · This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. i~1~ Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: William Hibbs CASE NUMBER: 92-036 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30q LOCATION: 5860 Idlewood Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to improve an existing structure. At the present time, the existing home has a 17 foot front yard setback which is 13 feet short of the required 30 foot setback. Additionally, the property has a nonconforming garage which received a variance in 1981. The garage is 2 feet from the property line instead of the required 4 feet. COMMENT: The existing home is nonconforming due to its front yard setback. The intent of the nonconforming provisions of the Zoning Code is to see that uses and structures that do not meet current ordinance requirements are amortized over a period of time and eventually brought into conformance. In the case of buildings, they are typically required to meet ordinance criteria if they are proposed to be reconstructed or substantially improved. Land Use / Environmental · Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Hibbs Variance July 7,1992 Page 2 The Building Official has reviewed the existing home and prepared a list of deficiencies. The front portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback area has a number of problems. According to the Building Official's inspection, the rafters are sagging and appear to be undersized, the foundation has failed on the west side, other sides of the foundation have been covered by a wooded material precluding further inspection, siding is not properly installed, and portions of the interior ceiling have collapsed apparently due to leaks in the roof. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Building Official's inspection, it appears that the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems. The magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan for improving the existing home that includes removal of the front portion of the home, remodeling the existing conforming portions of the structure as necessary, and adding additional space to the home in a conforming location on the lot. Upon preparation of such a plan, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage. revised 4/2/92 _VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 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: 1. Detailed descripton of proposed const~ruction or alteration (size, number ~f ~t~f~ories, type of use, etc.):_~ ,.or Block Addition - . ~1/ Zoning District~ Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this ~operty? .(~ yes, ( ) no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and ~ovide copies of resolutions. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone Address of Subject Property_~_~_~60 ~ Owner,s Name ~;///,~,~,~ /z///.~ Day Phone Own e r' s Add r e s s /~ ~ ~, ¢ Fz~ ~ /~. /~/'. J [ Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~~ revised 4/2/92 Variance Application 'e 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 11o, specify each non-conforming ~s~ (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE Front Yard: ( NOE W ) Rear Yard: (~ S E W ) Lake Front: ( N $ E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E~) /69 Side Yard: ( N S Lot Size: Street Frontage (or existing) __~/~ ft. /7-7 ft. ft. ft.~ ft. ft. __~_~___sq ft ~sq ft ft. '~_~' ft. ft. --- ft. ~ ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. sq ft ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 0~), No ( ). If no, 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 ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: F~/ ~W/~A~/~ ,0~/ ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case No.~ e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the 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 ~. If Ilo, 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'sSignatur'--~~~~/ Date~-/~-~ P~ "~' OF ~:~TqVE%~ I To: Planning commission and City council Re: variance application for 5860 Idlewood As to my application, I wish to include the repairs of the minor deficiencies Jon Sutherland noted on his inspection of the property. My reason for not including those items on the application was, I planned to include them on the building permit I was to obtain. I fully knew the minor problems Jon had stated and planned to remedy them. Also, with regard to the foundation, Jon is right, the original foundation is not in great shape, however a newer foundation had been poured inside the basement and there are newer block on the front part of the house. According to 2 concrete contractors the foundation is in average condition and very functional for that house, with the exception of the area noted on the plan, which was caused either by poor drainage or a backhoe or large tractor to close to the house when a patio was poured on the west side of house. I realize the home needs some work but Jon's definition of "dilapidated" is a bit strong. William A. Hi bbs 297 August II, 1981 Councllmember Polston moved the following resolution. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, RESOLUTION NO. 81-271 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND GRANT A 2 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE GARAGE - LOTS 4 & E.½ of 5, BLOCK I, THE HIGHLANDS the owner of Lots 4 and East ½ of Lot 5, Block I, The Highlands, Plat 61610, Parcel O1OO, PID #23-117-24 42 O014, is requesting a 2 foot side yard variance to replace garage, and there is an existing nonconformancy for the present garage and for the dwelling, and the Planning Commission has recommended a variance be granted for a double garage with the stipulation that the garage be built no less that 2 feet from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation and does approve the variance For a double garage with the stipulation that it be no less than 2 feet from the side property line, recognizing the nonconforming front yard setback for the dwelling. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: Ulrick; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Manager. Mayor Attest: City Manager PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT LOT 1, BLOCK $, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0021 1701 SHOREWOOD LANE P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-038 WHEREAS, The applicant, Daniel T. Balloy, has applied for a 260 square foot lot area variance and a 21' front yard setback variance from Three Points Blvd. to allow construction of a new single family dwelling to replace an existing home that was destroyed by fire, 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, Ail other proposed setbacks are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, upon the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are due principally to the shape of the lot which is a circumstance beyond the control of the property owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 260 square foot lot area variance and a 21' front yard setback variance from Three Points Blvd. to allow construction of a new single family dwelling to replace an existing home that was destroyed by fire at 1701 Shorewood Lane. 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 single family dwelling with an attached garage. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-038 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: LOt X, BlOCk 5, "SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINN." 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 ~ MEETIN~ OF THE NOUND ~DVISORY PL~d~NING COHNISSION ~U~Y 13~ 1992 CASE ~92-038.'_ ~701 8HOREWOOD LANE LOT 1, B ....... ,.ocK famil dwelli~. --- ,~ vv~l. VARIANCE City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to construct a new home to replace an existing home that was destroyed by fire. As proposed, the new structure will meet all setbacks except the front yard off of Three Points Blvd. which will require a 21' setback variance to the attached garage. The lot has a total area of 9,740 square feet which results in an additional variance request of 260 square feet. Upon completion, the amount of impervious cover on the lot will be approximately 30%. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and lot area variances to allow construction of the new home. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are due principally to the shape of the lot which is a circumstance beyond the control of the property owner. Mueller commented that with the driveway, he is concerned about the amount of hardcover. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Daniel T. Balloy CASE NUMBER: 92-038 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30s LOCATION: 1701 Shorewood Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to construct a new home to replace an existing home that was destroyed by fire. As proposed, the new structure will meet all setbacks except the front yard off of Three Points Boulevard. At the comer of the garage (closest point), the setback is 9 feet rather than the 30 feet required in the Code. Upon completion, the amount of impervious cover on the lot will be approximately 30%. According to information supplied by the applicant, the lot has a total area of 9,470 which is 260 square feet short of the required 10,000 square feet. COMMENT: One of the criteria for granting variances is unique lot shape. The subject lot is bounded on two sides by Three Points Boulevard and Shorewood Lane. It is not a typical corner lot since its shape protrudes into the off-angle intersection of these two streets creating an inordinate amount of street frontage. The footprint of the proposed home mirrors the shape of the lot. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Balloy Variance July 7,1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and lot area variances to allow construction of the new home. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are due principally to the shape of the lot which is a circumstance beyond the control of the property owner. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND $341 Maywood Road, Mound, )Hq 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 .~ I 8 1992 City Council Date: Jo'lq z$. /qqz_ Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~__ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to city Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name ~'%~1 ~, I Owner's Address I~O ~ 5ho~e Applicant's Name (if other than owner) dress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Zoning District Block ~O]V'"V'~" PID NO. 13-117- Z4 It ooZl Use of Property: 5~ "~'~! ~-- Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. of stories, type of use, etc.): eons~cuc~ ne~ Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 2 2. Do..the_ existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is loc e ~ Yes (), No (~). If no, specify each non-conform'. at d. reason for varia ~ ~ ..... ~ : ....... ~ng use (describe nc.~ ~=~, ..~. setbacK, lot area, etc.)_E~5~ SETBACKS:[N~u~ ~on~%cuC~-__A re u' ' ~ v~A~ q lre~ requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S ~) E Rear Yard: ( N S~W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: (~E W ) Side Yard: ( S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage ft. 30 ft. 0 ft. I~ ft. ~ ~ ft. O ft. Do~ ~@~tiC. ft. - -__ ft. ~ ft. !O' - ft. ~O ft. O ft. _. ~) ft. q ft. Z| ft. ~OO~sq ft ~740 sq ft Z~O sq ft ~ ft. -' -- ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (X) 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: O~ ~~~ ~9~A- l0j~, ~ 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 O~. If yes, explain rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application re 3 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ()O. 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 · -..- , Certificate of Survey for Dan Balloy of Lot I, Block 5, "SflADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINN." Ex[stin,~ Legal Description Lot I, Block 5, "SHADYWOOD 'POINT, HE~;NEI~IN COUNTY MINN." 'This survoy shows the locatimn of an ez~.stiDc~ he,use and &-~'preposed house in relatiot% t~. t, he boulidorins of the above describnd property. It do~s not Durport to show any other imDrovements or o ~ ~?ron marker sot ~ : Proposed Datum: City Of Mou~d t i, OI;gl · PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING A NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO A CONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT LOTS 28, 29, & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID #19-117-23 33 0106 4754 HAMPTON ROAD P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-039 WHEREAS, The applicant, Allan Wigand, has requested a 17.33, front yard setback variance to recognize an existing nonconforming detached garage with a 2.67' setback to Drury Lane to allow construction of a conforming addition onto a conforming principal dwelling, and; WHEREAS, There is a storage building which encroaches .8 feet onto the neighboring property. Mr. Wigand indicated that the storage building will be removed during construction. 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 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, upon the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the garage was established prior to ordinance adoption. 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 the existing nonconforming detached garage with a 2.67' front yard setback to allow construction of a conforming addition to the dwelling at 4754 Hampton Road, subject to the following conditions: ae The existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or relocated to a conforming location on the lot prior to final inspection of the addition. Approval of the recognition of the garage variance for the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. ,¥37 PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-039 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 14.5' x 28' one story bedroom addition with a basement, and a 10.5' x 38.16' three season porch. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 28, 29, and 30, Block ~0, PEMBROKE. 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 COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 City P~anner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request to recognize a variance for an existing nonconforming garage for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to a conforming principal structure. The detached garage has a 2.67 foot setback from Drury Lane resulting in a 17.33 foot variance. In addition, there is a storage building which encroaches .8 feet onto the neighboring property. Mr. Wigand indicated that the storage building will be removed during construction. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the existing garage setback variance be recognized for the purpose of adding a conforming addition to the home subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or relocated to a conforming location on the lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the existing home. 2. Approval of the ~ecognitio~ of the garage variance for the purpose ~f expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming ~r~ge variance for the ~urpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the garage was established prior to ordinance adoption. The applicant requested that the shed be allowed to remain until the majority of the addition is completed so he may use it for storage of building materials. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded b Muelle approval of the ar4... .... Y r, to recommend v ....... ~ aa recommend b - a~low the s~ed to remain unti y staff, and to Motion carrled unanimously. I final building inspection. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO:. Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7,1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Allan C. Wigand CASE NUMBER: 92-039 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30t LOCATION: 4754 Hampton Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking recognition of a variance for an existing nonconforming garage for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the existing residence. The garage presently has an 2.67 foot setback from Drury Lane which is 17.33 feet under the required 20 foot setback. All other aspects of the property are conforming with the exception of an existing storage building which encroaches .8 feet into the neighboring property. In the application, Mr. Wigand indicated that the storage building will be removed during construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the existing garage setback variance be recognized for the purpose of adding a conforming addition to the home subject to the following conditions: The existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or relocated to a conforming location on the lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the existing home. Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Wigand Variance July 7,1992 Page 2 e Approval of the recognition of the garage variance for the purpose of .expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to ~mprove or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the garage was established prior_ to ordinance adoption. revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Heywood Road, Mou~d, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: city Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~~_~_ __ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property :{~ J~aml~O~,~J. /~,c~, /~'. ,.~.~'~ Owner's Name ~IL~N d ~;.;~J Day Phone Owner's Address ~-~ ~~om A pplicant's Name (if other than owner) ddress Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~,~%~0 Addition p~Jm~¥~ Zoning District ~--~_ %0 PID NO. 1 -117- O;0& Use of Property: ~u~e~:[W~e~;J~;~[ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ()~ no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alter, ation (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ~ev£sed 4/2/92 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.) ~x:st~~~ SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S~W) Rear Yard: ( N S ) Lake Front: ( N S~E W ) -(~CflSide Yard: (~ S~_~E W ) Side Yard: (~)S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage required ~O ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~~/_~-sq ft ft. requested (or exis. ting} ~ lO" ft. ft. ' ft. ft. sq ft ft. VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes 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 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 revised 4/2/92 Variance Application je 3 Case No. 6e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No (A). If yes, explain such as the 7. 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? Se 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. Applioant's Signature~ · J , J~ ~15o o PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A V~I~CE TO RECOGNIZE ~ EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT LOT 28, WHIPPLE SHORES, 5246 PIPER ROAD P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-041 WHEREAS, The applicants, David and Diane Bartels have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming detached garage to allow construction of a conforming addition to a conforming dwelling, and; WHEREAS, The existing garage is in sound condition and has a 9 foot side yard setback resulting in a variance of 3 1' and a 17.3 foot front yard setback resulting in a 2.7' variance, 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' front yard setback, 6' side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 50' setback from the Ordinary High Water, and; WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, upon the following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variances for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variances are considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby recognize a 3.1' side yard setback variance and a 2.7' front yard setback variance for the existing nonconforming detached garage to allow construction of a conforming addition to an existing conforming principal structure, upon the following condition: ae Approval of the recognition of the garage variances for the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE #92-041 Se Se 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 an addition consisting of a two story living space (22' x 22') and a deck (10' x 22'). This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 28, Whipple Shores. 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 COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CASE J92-041= DAVID & DIANE BARTELSm 5246 PIPER ROADm LOT 28~ WHIPPLE SHORES~ PID J25-117-24 21 0100. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for recognition of an existing detached garage setback variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to an existing conforming principal structure. The existing garage which is in sound condition has a .9 foot side yard setback and a 17.3 foot front yard setback resulting in a 3.1' side yard setback variance and a 2.7' front yard setback variance, respectively. The addition will consist of a two story living space (22' x 22') and a deck (10' x 22'). Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the existing garage setback variances be recognized for the purpose of adding the conforming addition and deck to the home subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the garage variances for the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variances for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variances are considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by ross to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: David and Diane Bartels CASE NUMBER: 92-041 HKG FILE NUMBER: 92-30v LOCATION: 5246 Piper Road EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking recognition of an existing detached garage setback variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to an existing home. The addition will consist of a two story living space (22' x 22') and a deck measuring 10' x 22', The existing garage which is in sound condition has a .9 foot side yard setback and a 17.3 foot front yard setback resulting in variances of 3.1' and 2.7' respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the existing garage setback variances be recognized for the purpose of adding the conforming addition and deck to the home subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the garage variances for the purpose of .expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to unprove or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. Land Use/Environmental, Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Barrels Variance July 7,1992 Page 2 If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variances for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variances are considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. revised 4/2/92 ¥~CE APPLICAT~OY __ ciTY o~, ~o~ ~41 Ma~ood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0~00, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:_ ~.~ 10 City Council Date: ~-~ Il ? Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~~l Zoning Sheet Completed: _ Copy to City Planner: - Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: · · · lee·e· ··ieee ee®e®oeseoeeoloeOlOeeoee®eee Address of Subject Property. 5~4~ P/p~ Owner,s Name D~v,s ,~ : ~,~& ~. '~r~&5 Owner,s Address 1 - ~ ~z ~! Applicant,s Name (if other than owner) Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Day Phone_ Day Phone Lot * ' ' ' ~ " Block -- Addition ',,oh',~m,~ aa~ ~ PID No.~---I i'7-ZM Zl 0 1 0 0 Zoning District ~-Z Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If ~es, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions· Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of 'stories, type of use, etc.): revised 4/2/92 Variance Application e 2 Case No. e 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.) SETBACKS'. required requested (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N,~ E W ) Rear Yard: ( N~ E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S~W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: Street Frontage ft. {7. ~ ft. 2.7 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft ft. ft. 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: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( aj topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing (--) other: specify Please describe: 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 (~L~ If yes, explain revised 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 0 Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the 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 (~). 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 required by law. Mound City Manager !~ound City Planning Commission Mound Cit.v Building. Inspector Ci%y Hall Mound MN 56784 Dear Sirs; I am David B,.rt, els. together with my x:,ife Diane and daughter Gretta, I lix, e ,nd h,ve lived st 6246 Piper Road for the pest 8 2, ear~. I hax*e recent, ly contracted with ~ local con~raclor. Glen Nedderme>,er. to construct an addition to our house. On Thursdax,. June 25. while in the process of making aDD!ication for the necessary building permits for this ~ddition. we were infomed that a ~,ariance ~ould be necessaE~' as a result of t. he location of our g~.rage on our property. This Dre~iousl~' existin.a buildine, not affected bxz the addition ~o (he house, i~ apparently nonconforming with respect to the setbacks to both the street and adjacent property. In the past a · ~ari~.nce for this buildin~ had been issued to pre~:ious owners. I em not asking for anythin~ more than has been d~ne in the past. nor am 1 ,skin~ for any extreme deviation from cit), codes and procedures. I ~m howe'~er a~kina for some c~nsideration in the expedition of the proces~e~ in~ol~ed in ~et(ing (he ~ddit. ion project unde~ay. ~ith re~ect to the ~araae and it.s location on the ~ro~e~v. it is a t~,o stair structure wi~h its foundation du~ deep into the side of the hih[ I~ i~ not feasible for us ia mo~e ii, If the ~e~ance process in ~ound has ~s its ~oal the bringing, of al! properties in Mound into strict compliance. ~he enforcement in (his case, will do nothin~ mere than cancel our ~ddition f:roject, We will suffer the hardship of the capt. s thus f~.r ~.~soci~ted with the project and the city will l~se the increased revenue associated with the increased (~x b~se an improved property ~ou!d brin~, The undue delay' as ff ~as exvlafned to mti wife ~his ~.ft. ernoon involved in the variance granting process and subsequent buildin~ permit ~ill cause ua considerable hardship and some degree of unnecessary ~ak. ~ia ~ddition includes the o~enin~ of roof, ~all~ and doors for a ~eriod of time. The replacement of the furnace and he~tina ~i~in~ ia included in (he vrojec( aa ~ell, The timing of the vroiect ia designed to take advantage of the summer man(ha, Th~ delays described to us in ~ai(in8 for a ~ari~nce ~hich w~ are confident ~ou ~ill ~rant seem to increase the hardshi~ and risk associated ~ith the ~roiect, If b~ chance .~ou determine the variance will not be ~ranted, it seems extraordinary to have to wait until September to find out, ~pecifica]]y, then I ~ou]d request t. hat 1) our variance re<~uest be examined and dealt w . plannin co ' ' , ith at the g remission meet~n sch · · g eduled for Ju].v 13th. We have sp, oken w~th the adjacent neighbors (El]in son wlllin to a g s) and they ~re g ppear and/or respond favorably by that time. 2) in the'e~-ent that the above cannot be accomvlished, end that our variance application is heard at the August 10th planning commission meeting, we ask that the finding~ from the commission be presented to the Augus! ~lih City Counc~ meeting, Please feel free to contact either myself or my wife to discuss and facilitate any of these matters, I~vid and Diane Barrels ~I~46 Piper Hoad 47a-~ /.home) 936-8T80 {Da~e at ~ork) Cert~£icate of Survey for Da~,id & Diane Barrels of l.ot 2~, whipplo Shoros Existinq Legal Description Lot 28, Whipple Shores This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and a proposed addition in relatiop to the boundaries of the above described pro[,- ertv. It does not purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. · : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set (1~ : Existing elevation Datum: City of Mound Bearings shown are to an assumed datum -J -J kD Z pq ~- bJ ._J E3 ~-~rY Z Ld ~ Ld Z [] <[ CLI n I'~ Z -l- H- C~ Z ~J ~ ,) J Z W W C PROPOSED RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L~DS PER,fIT FOR CAROLE MUNSON TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ~ GU~tDR~IL ON DEVON COLONS, DOCK SITE #42314, ABUTTING 4729 ISLAND VIE~ DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON ~HERE~S, Carole Munson has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow the construction of a stairway and guardrail on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42314 abutting 4729 Island View Drive, and; , · HERE~S, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval 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, and; WHEREAS, on Apr~ 28, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 92 48 TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS "~ CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO ...... , .u THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE,,, and; STAIRWAYS ON WHEREAS, on June 23, 1992, the City Council agreed to give Ms. Munson until July 28, 1992 to submit an application for a construction on public lands permit with a plan for whatever she is proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio, and; WHEREAS, a proposed plan for the guardrail was received by City Staff the day prior to the Park and Open Space Commission meeting, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a Construction on Public Lands Permit for Carole Munson on Devon Commons, Dock Site #42314, abutting 4729 Island View Drive, Lot 6, Block 7, Devon, as follows: 1. Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. 2. Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck). PROPOSED RESOLUTION CAROLE MUNSON 3. The existing guardrail be allowed to remain as proposed by the applicant, which includes a portion of the deck which currently overhangs from the retaining wall by approximate%y 1 foot. The guardrail shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height with intermediate rails spaced less than 6 inches apart. 4. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore-~nd t hat ~the ~eco~ a~~ o rk~%nd~ 5. That a handrail of an approved type as noted on handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. 6. That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. 7. Permit expiration date is December 10, 1994 which is consistent with the previously granted maintenance permit for this property. Permit renewal is required upon expiration. MINUTES OF A MEE?IIq(~ OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 9, 1992 ~'£a~RWAY WALKWAy BY~ nM ......... ?ION. RE UEST FOR Sr., ''~ ~AND VIEW DRIVE, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a construction on public lands permit. On June 23, 1992 the City Council ordered removal of the existing deck· The applicant stated her intentions at the June 3rd meeting to leave a 4 foot walkway between the existing two stairways and add a new step off the walkway to the old patio area and fill this area with crushed gravel or sand. Staff recommended approval of the applicant,s request as amended by staff as follows: Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck)· Fill and re-grade the area between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. Install a new guardrail along the lower old masonry retaining wall once the illegal deck as been removed. The guardrail shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height with intermediate rails spaced less than 6 inches apart. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work and plantings be allowed to remain. 0 That a handrail of an approved type as noted on handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway, the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building Official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. Permit expires five (5) years from date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. The Building Official commented that an actual plan was not Park and Open Space eoulsslon Minutes July 9, 1992 received until 3:07 p.m. on July 8 from the applicant and it was handed out to the Commissioners by the Secretary. Casey questioned if the applicant could install bushes instead of the proposed guardrail. The Building Official stated that the guardrail is required by code. Casey suggested that this permit have the same expiration date as the current maintenance permit on this property so when they expire the proposal can be reviewed as a whole. Ms. Munson addressed the Commission and stated that the "Use Plan" designates the commons area abutting her property as a fishing area, and uses which would discourage this area to be used for fishing should not be allowed. In her opinion, the improvements on the commons do not discourage the use of the area for fishing. Munson proposed that the portion of the deck which currently overhangs from the retaining wall by approximately 1 foot be allowed to remain so she will not have to alter the guardrail. Munson noted that the retaining wall has a protrusion, or a jog which is approximately 3' wide, and if she is required to bring the guardrail back to the retaining wall, the guardrail will have to follow the jog which would look silly, or if the guardrail is straight, the jogged portion of the retaining wall would be visible to those standing on the grade above which does not make any sense when she could just leave the existing guardrail. What difference will i foot make? It will save her a lot of time and money. The Parks Director emphasized that the City Council has ordered the entire deck be removed. Munson referred to item ~3 of staff's recommendation and stated that it would be very difficult to carry a lawn mower down to mow the patio portion, and it is such a small area it does not make any sense. Munson stated that she won't sod the area because she is not going to mow it. She would prefer to have sand or gravel, and she does not believe erosion will be a problem. Casey commented that an ideal proposal would be to remove the retaining wall and slope the grade. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Mueller to recommend that the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit expiration date be consistent with the existing Maintenance Permit on file for this property. Motion carried 5 to Z. Those in favor were= Asleson, Casey, Mueller and Skoglund. Byrnes and Anderson opposed. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval as recommended by staff with the exception of items #3 and #4, and that the applicant be allowed to leave the existing guardrail as proposed. Motion carried 4 to 2. Those in favor were= Byrnes, Anderson, Mueller and Skoglund. Casey and Asleson were opposed. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. F?om : ¢fi~OLE G MUHGOH PIIoHr' Ho. : Gl2 .472 1GTG FAX TRANSMIS~I~ O'ul. O0 1002 3:07PM POi RECEIVED ,1111 ~ ~2 MOUe) PL~NtNG & INSP. FROM; .... ~.?~ ?~ ?~,, .?,~?,. , PHONE No. : 612 4?2 1676 Jul.08 1992 ~:08PM P02 From : CAROLE S MUNSON I RECEIVED J~_ 9 ~992 MOLIN~ PLAI~JNING & INSP. CITY of IOUN'D _STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOtlND MINNESOTA 55364 1687 ~612~472 ~55 FAX ,612 4-2 3620 DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: CLASS: July 9, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission and App~ant Jori Sutherland, Building Official .,~OY~ · Jim Fackler, Parks Director Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive, Lot 6, Block 7, Devon Devon 42314 C SUBJECT: Construction on Public Lands Permit Application BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted this current proposal as a result of the action taken by the City Council that orders removal of the existing deck constructed without the required public lands and building permits. Please note the attached City Council minutes dated June 23, 1992. The applicant had basically stated her intentions at that meeting to leave a 4 foot walkway between the existing two stairways and add a new step off the walkway to the old patio area and fill this area with crushed gravel or sand. In addition, the applicant would like to leave the railing that is currently up on the edge of the deck as a safety feature. As staff prepared this report, plans and specifications were not available for review. The concept stated within the application and Ms. Munson's letter dated June 25, 1992 do appear reasonable to staff with the amendments as stated in the recommendation. printed on recycled paper Staff Report July 9, 1992 Carole Munson RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request as amended by staff as follows: Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck). Fill and re-grade the area between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. Install a new guardrail along the lower old masonry retaining wall once the illegal deck as been removed. The guardrail shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height with intermediate rails spaced less than 6 inches apart. Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work and plantings be allowed to remain. That a handrail of an approved type as noted on the attached handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. J That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building Official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. Permit expires five (5) years from date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. JS:pj Attachments: PoS, City Council Minutes dated June 23, 1992. Handrail Handout The abutting neighbors have been notified. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 28, 1992. 2 HINU?E8 . HOUND CITy COUNCIL . JUI~ 23, 1992 There was another letter attached to the structural engineer,s report on the boathouse. This letter refers to the patio and deck on Ms. Munson,s property at 4729 Island View Drive. The City Attorney asked if this second letter implies that Ms. Munson is going to comply with the Councll,s order to remove the deck as it is on Commons and was voted upon last December. Ms. Munson stated that she is looking for several ways to keep the integrity of the deck area, and to keep a railing. She stated she has discussed this with the Building Official because she Is very concerned about safety in that area. She suggested removing the planking from the deck, leaving 4 feet as the walkway between the stairways and have a step off the walkway to the old patio area. She would then like to leave the railing that is currently up on the edge of the deck as a safety feature so that people Would not fall off that area. The Building Official explained that he and the Park Director told Ms. Munson that if she was going to do anything other than the walkway between the stairways, she Would have to get a construction on public lands permit. That would require bringing a plan in and filling out an application and going through the Park & Open Space Commission and the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the City Council issued an order in December and Mr. Shukle wrote Ms. Munson a letter The Inspectors went out to the property on the 11th of June, have taken pictures, etc. None of the things that she was directed to ho have been done. Mr. Shukle has contacted the City Attorney and has directed his office to commence roce ~_~s to .have their properti~ b ~lngs a~ainst Ms. Munson and ~-~,~ s oraer. The City Attorne,.r._~ ~nto~com~liance with the ~ ~A~u now ne s~ould proceed. Ms. Munson contended that she was instructed to investigate the possibility of keeping a railing. Ms. Munson was reminded that she was sent a handout for stairways and handrails in a letter that was sent by the Building Official on May 18, 1992. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson would agree to remove everything other than the stairways and handrails that have been required and approved by the Council on April 28, 1992. Ms. Munson stated she was in agreement. The Council agreed to give Ms. Hudson until July 28, 1992, to apply and go through the process of construction on public lands permit. Ms. Munson was instructed to submit an application for a construction on Public lands perait with a plan for whatever she is Proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio. A~y plan would not include the deck that has been ordered robe removed. The deadline for submitting an application and a plan is July 1, 1992. If the application and plan are not received by July 1, the BUilding Official will notify the City Manager. The Council instructed the City Attorney to stay any action on Ms Munson,s deck removal until after the July 28, 1992, Council Meeting. · Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, an abutting property ' Commons. Me was not happy With having property abutting owner to Me related several items that he has a problem with: 1. colMaons. Docks piled up on the shoreline. 2. A picnic table that has been left on the commons. 3. He planted two pine trees and was told to remove them. 4. Difference between dedicated commons and regular commons. The City Manager Will check with the Park Director and the Dock Inspector on these items. The Council complimented Mr. Flack on how nice he keeps his CO.ORS. ct E. Eckroc~&, thc.. .,,g Structural [ngJnecrs 10130 36th place North ° plymouth, Minnesota 55441 ° (612) 544-8599 JUN 2 3 199Z MOUND PLANNING & iNSP. Comm. fla. 155-92 june 15, 199Z Ms. Carole Munson ~729 Island View Dr. Mound, Mil 5536~ Re: Patio deck on your property at 4729 Island View Dr., Mound, MN · The Dear Ms. Munson, On June 1Z, 1992 I visited your property at the above referenced address purpose of the visit was to examine the patio deck for proposed revisions' to comply with the deck could remain to act As I understand, most of the patio deck has to be removed Mound. A narrow porti?n of ~he lead down to the dock wisheS of the city of flightS of sta~rS which be very lightly as a landing between the two such as small and boat house. The portion of deck which is to remain will · . cast in angered holes, treated posts emb- loaded and may be supported on almost any type of foundation · ;-~s. concrete p~ers .... ~ nn treated wood blocking laid on top concrete f?°~'~u~d or simply suppo~=~ - edded in the g~u , of the existing soil. to will be You also stated that you would like to reuse the existing deck railing from falling off the old block retaining wall whiChjoist,, and deck. The deck prevent people deck is removed. The treated Zx6 ,'rim exposed when the wood patio attached railing could be removed intact from the edge of the would then be removed. 4x4 treated wood posts could be embedded in the ground either in front of or behind the old block retaining wall and the railing could then be bolted to the 4x4 postS. Sincerly, ' .KiCna~u g. . Structural Engineer CITX ' ()f X IOL ND MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 3, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Jon Sutherland, Building Official Update on Carol Munson, 4729 Island View Drive Please note my attached letter to Ms. Munson dated May 18, 1992 to remind her of the action taken by the City Council at the April 2$th meeting. The City Council tabled any action to give Ms. Munson time to have the dilapidated boat house evaluated for minimum repairs to make the building safe and review the proposed repairs with staff. I did not receive a response from Ms. Munson prior to my letter. Then on June 2, 1992 I received a phone call from Mr. Richard Indritz, Ms. Munson's attorney (note the attached conversation record). Mr. Indritz noted that Ms. Munson had not yet obtained the services of an engineer to review the condition and repairs needed to the boat house and requested names of engineers he could contact. Please note the condition of the boat house is still questionable and action to allow repairs, or require removal of the hazard should not be delayed. JS:pj Enclosures printed on recycled paper Richard E. Eckroad, Inc. 10130 36th Place North · Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 · (612) 544-8599 Consulting Structurol Engineers. June 15, 1992 RECEIVED JUN 2 3 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Comm. No. 155-92 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Boat house on your property at 4729 Island View Dr., Mound, MN Dear Ms. Munson, On June 12, 1992 I visited your property at the above referenced address at your request. The purpose of the visit was to examine the boat house and comment on its structural integrity. The boat house is in a state of disrepair. The block walls are bowed inward, are out of plumb and contain several large cracks and the roof structure has become partially disconnected from the walls. If neglected, the boat house will become unusable and/or unsafe. The usefull life of this structure may be extended by bracing the walls with 6x6 treated wood timbers. The timbers would be placed vertically nearly full height against the inside face of both block side walls at some spacing - perhaps 48"o.c. (48" apart) from front to rear with a horizontal timber on top spanning acrossed the boat house from side wall to side wall. The rear wall could be similarly braced with vertical and horizontal timbers with the possible addition of horizontal timber braces at 45° over to the side walls. It might be necessary to utilize steel angles on the r~ar wall. The block cores at the large cracks could be grouted full height with concrete. The short wood stud walls which support the roof rafters would have to be plumbed and reattached to the top of the block walls or new stud walls added. You should be aware that because of the present poor condi- tion of the walls, the repairs mentioned above are only a temporary solution and the structure will continue to deteriorate. It is impossible to predict the longivity of the structure. I was not concerned for my safety during the time of my examination. However, you should be observant for any changes in the building such as misaligned door, widening cracks or new cracks which would be cause for concern. Sincer ly, Richard E. EckroadP.E. Structural Engineer de CITY of IOUND MOL',2 --AX 612; May 18, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN DECEMBER 10, 1991, RESOLUTION #92- 4.8, AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN APRIL 28, 1992 REGARDING MINIMAL REPAIRS TO THE BOAT HOUSE Dear Ms. Munson: On December 10, 1991 the City Council approved a 3 Year Maintenance Permit for the playhouse, boat house, stairway and retaining wall, but required the deck constructed without a permit be removed by June 10, 1992. This action did not designate or allow any repairs to the boat house or play house, but allowed after-the-fact repairs/construction to the stairway and retaining wall. On April 13, 1992 during a scheduled inventory of Devon Commons adjacent to your property at 4729 Island View Drive, staff noted the sagging roof and dilapidated condition of the existing boat house. On April 28, 1992 the Council addressed the boat house and the deck removal by tabling any action on the boat house until June 9th to give you time to have a building contractor look at the building and meet with me to do the minimum to make the building safe. The City Council also passed resolution #92-48 to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the commons (in the area of where the deck is which must be removed). I would like to remind you we will need to review these matters and work out a solution prior to the June 9th City Council meeting I would be happy to meet with you at the site to discuss the issues and answer any questions you or your contractor may have. Please note that deck is to be removed no later than June lOth 1992. printed on recycled paper Ms. Carole Munson May 18, 1992 Page 2 Available hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and I will need at least 24 hours notice. Building Official JS:pj Enclosures P.S. I have included a handout for stairways and handrails. The stairway you have installed is required to have a handrail. You have approval to construct the handrail. A final inspection is required, it is your responsibility to schedule the inspection. cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director '7). 72 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4?29 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE WHEREAS, within the last year and one half a deck was built on Commons in front of 4729 Island View Drive without a permit; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the Council approved a 3 year maintenance permit for certain structures on the Commons at 4729 Island View Drive, but required that the newly constructed deck be removed by June 10, 1992; and WHEREAS, there are two sets of stairways which are connected by the deck which is to be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Construction on Public Lands Permit, (fee waived), to Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons. Construction to be according to code. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk April 28, 1992 MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28v 1992 1.1l REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING (BOATHOUSE) ON PUBLIC LAND_~ (DEVON COMMONS), 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, CAROLE MUNSON The Building Official reviewed his report on the dilapidated boat house. The Staff recommends the OPTION #1 - The City Council direct staff and the City Attorney to proceed with removal of the boathouse due to its unsafe condition on public land. OR OPTION f2 - Allow the applicant continued use of the boathouse until the expiration of the current maintenance permit on December 10, 1994, upon the condition that the structure be restored to a safe condition by the applicant. The applicant shall submit a detailed list of corrections that address the concerns as listed by the Building Official in his report. Carole Munson was present and stated she feels comfortable with the boathouse as is. She requested that the Council stand by their decision on December 10, 1991, and honor the 3 year maintenance permit that was issued. The Council discussed the boathouse~ the maintenance permit~ what repairs to allow, if any~ and the removal of the boathouse at the end of the maintenance permit period. The question is whether or not to repair the boathouse. The Building Official recommended that the applicant get a qualified person to review the building. The applicant sta~ed she did intend to do some minimal things to the building, but no major improvements. The Council explained that the maintenance permit was to allow use to the extent of the useful life of the structure. The City Attorney gave the following analogy: 1. The building Official has recommended removal on the basis of, it is his opinion that the building is hazardous. 2. The Council is saying no, we've given a permit and we're going to live with that permit for the balance of the three year period. The Council is also asking the Building Official what needs to be done to the building to make it safe. 3. The Building Official is saying here are some things he can think of off the top of his head but essentially he does not want to be responsible to redesign her building. The City Attorney suggested that the Council defer action on this item for 2 weeks and let the Building Official work with the applicant and whoever her representative is to do what the Council is basically saying, i.e. do the minimal work to protect the health, safety and welfare of anybody who may be in or around that building for the 3 year period. At that time, it should come back, and an agreement be drawn between the City and Ms. Munson that: 1. There be insurance to protect she and the City. 2. It should contain language which would require its removal at the end of the permit period, at her expense. Another question that needs to be addressed is: Does the City want to require people to record these permit documents on their title, which is the only way persons buying the property would have official notice? MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to tab1e this item until the June 9th Meeting, in order to give Ms. Munson time to have a building contractor look at the building and meet with the Buildinq Official to do the minimum to make the buildinq safe. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '72 72 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON ON THE COMMONSs TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE WHEREAS, within the last year and one half a deck was built on Commons in front of 4729 Island View Drive without a permit; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the Council approved a 3 year maintenance permit for certain structures on the Commons at 4729 Island View Drive, but required that the newly constructed deck be removed by June 10, 1992; and WHEREAS, there are two sets of stairways which are connected by the deck which is to be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Construction on Public Lands Permit, (fee waived), to Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons. Construction to be according to code. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYW00D ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536,4 (612) 472-1155 NUHBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOI~I: I June 23, 1992 1.14 CONTINUED DISCUSSION RES CONDITION O____~F BOATHOUSE AND MINIMUM REPAIRS NEEDED FOR SAFETY PURPOSE8 AT__4729 ISLAND VIEW____DRIVE FOR CAROLE MUNSON The Building Official explained that he had just tonight received copies of letters from a structural engineer regarding the boathouse and deck at 4729 Island View Drive and thus has not had time to respond. The Council was given copies of the letters. There was considerable discussion about the report that Ms. Munson's structural engineer submitted. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson was willing to do what the engineer indicates needs to be done. Ms. Munson replied, absolutely. Ms. Munson indicated that the engineer's estimate of the cost of the minimal repairs as described in his report would be about $500 without labor. Ms. Munson stated that it was her understanding at the April 28th meeting that the building was to be repaired so that it would have at least the life expectancy of the maintenance use permit or 3 years. The City Attorney asked what kind of an agreement the City could make withher that she would do this work within a specified period of time to protect her safety or anyone else's. Ms. Munson stated that it coul4 be done within a 3 year period of time. The City Attorney explained that the Council since giving the 3 year maintenance permit just want it brought into a safe condition for that 3 year period. He asked if she could do that within the next month. Ms. Munson replied, no. Ms. Munson stated that her understanding of the engineer's report was that it is impossible to determine exactly what shape the building is in from a safety standpoint so she feels she should have the period of the maintenance use permit to do the work. She stated that the structural engineer's report does not indicate that the building is 111 2. June 23, 1992 in any imminent danger of being a public safety hazard. She stated she would do the work during the time period of the maintenance use permit. The City Attorney stated that the City would like to work this out and have the repairs done in a timely manner. Ms. Munson stated she would like to do the work during the winter when timbers could be brought in over the ice on the lake. The Council expressed concern about doing this work when the ground is frozen. The Council asked that the Building Official speak with Richard E. Eckroad, P.E., Structural Engineer and clarify the information in the letter and a time frame for the repairs to be completed. The following questions need to be~answered: Is the structure in good enough condition to stand where it is for 2 1/2 years? Can the boathouse wait until Winter and what effect will winter frost have on the repairs? Ms. Munson stated she cannot do the work within the next 30 days. The Council was polled to see if they were willing to give Ms. Munson 2 1/2 years to repair the boathouse. Four Councilmembers stated no, they were not willing to allow this. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to hear from the structural engineer as to what time period he thinks these kinds of things would need to be completed by. HO?ION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to hold any action on thie until the meeting on July 28, 1992, to give the Building Official time to cl&rify information submitted in the s~ructural enqineer,e letter and try to answer the questions a~ove. The vote vas unanimously in flavor. Motion carried. 1.17 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There was another letter attached to the structural engineer's report on the boathouse. This letter refers to the patio and deck on Ms. Munson's property at 4729 Island View Drive. The City Attorney asked if this second letter implies that Ms. Munson is going to comply with the Council's order to remove the deck as it is on Commons and was voted upon last December. Ms. Munson stated that she is looking for several ways to keep the integrity of the deck area, and to keep a railing. She stated she has discussed this with the Building Official because she is very concerned about safety in that area. She suggested removing the 112 June 23, 1992 planking from the deck, leaving 4 feet as the walkway between the stairways and have a step off the walkway to the old patio area. She would then like to leave the railing that is currently up on the edge of the deck as a safety feature so that people would not fall off that area. The Building Official explained that he and the Park Director told Ms. Munson that if she was going to do anything other than the walkway between the stairways, she would have to get a construction on public lands permit. That would require bringing a plan in and filling out an application and going through the Park & Open Space Commission and the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the City Council issued an order in December and Mr. Shukle wrote Ms. Munson a letter. The Inspectors went out to the property on the llth of June, have taken pictures, etc. None of the things that she was directed to do have been done. Mr. Shukle has contacted 'the City Attorney and has directed his office to commence proceedings against Ms. Munson and Mr. Hanus to have their properties brought into compliance with the Council's order. The City Attorney asked how he should proceed. Ms. Munson contended that she was instructed to investigate the possibility of keeping a railing. Ms. Munson was reminded that she was sent a handout for stairways and handrails in a letter that was sent by the Building Official on May 18, 1992. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson would agree to remove everything other than the stairways and handrails that have been required an4 approved by the Council on April 28, 1992. Ms. Munson stated she was in agreement. The Council agreed to give Ms. Munson until July 28, 1992, to apply and go through the process of construction on public lands permit. Ms. Munson was instructed to submit an application for a construction on public lands permit with a plan for whatever she is proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio. Any plan would not include the deck that has been ordered to be removed. The deadline for submitting an application and a plan is July 1, 1992. If the application and plan are not received by July 1, the Building Official will notify the City Manager. The Council instructed the City Attorney to stay any action on Ms. Munson's deck removal until after the July 28, 1992 Council Meeting. ' PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATF.: -~ / { / ~ P HONE 0 ~'z~r_ ~,~::~ CONVERSATION WITH ADDRESS/CO.: AH6~61~: %' DOM-f KM~¢)IT ¢OOl_D 5'F~tdt> Hi5 LC=rl'~ 15 ~o &'~r 0PIMIog[ ,~l,4D NC>? A 6UARAI,,YFEJE., ¢OE_517C~J ~ % d-,~l,4 'FILE BC),~THOt~E IAt;rll- OMT1LL WIMT6~ AMP Wlt~T EFFE.F...I' WILL_ HAvE ora -r~ p.c_..pA :~757 AklOJodg-. ', 5a~ Hi5 P--EZ'op._-V ~O~T Ar-o ~T t5 I~ 'THE OOES-F/c:~ tOA% REPHI~AS¢__..,12 ,86 v,3~AT WOoL.~ '¢Ou DC, "'r'O F..t..l I~llldArTE AMWTMII'4% HA-PP~ MIM"& B&"FU36..Lk/, MO~,3 % cF=,.. ("OV~ ~'") PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: ~7 / I /~J PHONE CONVERSATION WITH: ~{~~ ~C~O~ BY: ADDRESS/CO.: CC)lxl~UL-q']ki-6- S~3~_,,TL)~C ~J,~-6 . RE: ~= % ----> 6'8" MINIMUM HANDRAIL Sec. 330~ O' 34'-38' 4" MIN. RiSE 8" MAXIMUM RlSl · MINIMUM RUN OCCUPANT LOAD LESS'~'AN 10 (Private Stairway) , ~. . ,~..'~,;, .:~,. .-. ,,. · ','c.. ~ ~ f~.,, - , ,.', .~_.~ ,. .. . ., .. :,..~..:,..,...:. ~ .... -. :.'.'"~...~,.*". 'i.f_~-,' '** :-' . · · ~'-' ~.~ "~'~,~. I ~-~'~ ' '"' ~' .... : * '., .'~~:'*:t7~-" ...... , .. ~-,' o? '.'~.'~o,' . ' .~ *°" o'~" ' *,'. ,.ii.- ~%::.%,: · .....~.. VARIATION OF 3/8 INCH ~ ~?i'.~ i.}'~qO(:~M - . ,~.-,: ...' . ,~ ~'~' · . MAXIMUM R,S " V^.,AT O. .. · ,'. ;,' r' .: ~.~.. .,. '. MINIMUM' ' 4" MIN. RISE 7' MAXIMUM RISE ,...OCCUPANT '.~,~ .~....., ,.,, · .. ./'~ ... ... , ..,, o :1 1" QRE 1988 LJ~; Ha~d.p ~ecvee~ ~" - 2". Revised 2/18/92 (Public.Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Distribut ion: Building Official Watershed DNR LMCD Date Received Park Meeting Date City Council Date RECEIVED JUN Z 9 1992 MOUNo PLANNING & INSP. 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one)= CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. ' ' PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT to maintain or repair an existing structure LAND ALTERATION - change in shoreline, drainage, .slope, trees, fill, etc. OWNER' S NAME J~f-~ lC /C/~/t3S dAJ OWNER' S DAY PHONE # ~"~o~- 3,~'=,~ O DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING (s) ~ ADDITION N~',E O~ PUBLIC L~D ~. ~-~ / APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS (if different) PROPERTY: BLOCK PID # SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK ~ ADDRESS ~/~/~ CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE # VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE: ~ ~ _. ~ ~/-/2 ~/~¢ 6 · / / ~ignature of Applicant Dated .............................................................. __ Approved Denied DATE CITY COUNCIL __ Approved __ Denied DATE RECEIVED June 25, 1992 Mr. Jon Sutherland Building Inspector City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 JUN 2 9 19 . MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Mr. Sutherland, Enclosed please find my application for Public Lands Permit, which will place this application on the Parks and Open Space Commission agenda for July 9, and the City Council agenda for July 28. Regarding the checklist of your requirements: 1. You have the Certificate of the Survey, showing existing structures. The proposed changes to provide for safety measures (the stairways, walkway, and front railing and handrail for lower stairways) are currently being drawn by my structural engineer, Dick Eckroad. As you know, I have only until July 1 to submit this application and all pertinent data to you, and I will be out of town from today, June 25 until Friday night, July 3. Mr. Eckroad will work on the drawings and I will receive them Monday, July 6. I will forward them to you and have them available on July 9. 2. Scaled drawings, please see above. 3. Proposed cost of project. No materials required. Demolition of deck will require labor charges, and addition of one step, handrail, and moving of railing, plus filling in of old deck area I estimate will cost $ 400.00. 4. Statement of purpose for proposed changes. [ have a standing order to remove the wood planking which covers the old, unsafe deck. [ have had two accidents, including one small child who fell off of the old deck. Believing this was my property, I accepted liability for these injuries. Actually, the City of Mound would have been liable. · I have repeatedly requested that the railing be left in place for safety reasons, and the City of Mound has not chosen to address this issue, but chosen to concentrate on removal of all encroachments. You have stated many times that the old deck is more than 30" above grade. Therefore, that means that this structure requires a safety railing. I built this railing for safety reasons, and built it to code. As you and Hr. Fackler stated during the most recent Committee of the Whole meeting "wherever the City has unsafe condition on public property, it must meet the same requirements as an individual must meet". My proposal is to leave the twO stairways and the 4' wide' walkway just as they are. If I rip out a]] of the decking (including the landing, or walkway, then I must also tear out two top steps on the lower stairway, and ADD two steps to the top stairway, then rebuild the walkway AGAIN, just where it now stands. Then, I would add one step going down into the old deck area, which would be approximately 10" in height, and fi]] in the old deck area with some sort of non hard-cover surfacing such as crushed gravel or sand. The old deck area was covered with new wood pl.anking due to the "lip" that exists on the old retaining wall, causing people to stumble and fa]] on the deck, or over the edge of the wa]], as with the two accidents I have had. In'addition, as I have repeatedly explained, the top surface of the old deck is inconsistent, flagstone, old broken concrete, and rock and is easy to trip on, and is quite jagged. It should be filled in. As for the railing on the front of the deck, my preference is to leave it where it is. The other choice is to cut it off entirely, in one piece, move it back, and completely reattach it with 4' postholes, as per Mr. Eckroad's professional opinion. If you have further questions, please call me at 472-3520 after July 3, or Mr. Eckroad. 72 April 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-48 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, (FEE WAIVED), TO CAROLE MUNSON 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALKWAY TO CONNECT THE TWO STAIRWAYS ON THE COMMONS, TO BE BUILT ACCORDING TO CODE WHEREAS, within the last year and one half a deck was built on Commons in front of 4729 Island View Drive without a 'permit~ and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the Council approved a 3 year maintenance permit for certain structures on the Commons at 4729 Island View Drive, but required that the newly constructed deck be removed by June 10, 1992~ and' WHERE~S, there are two sets of stairways which are connected by the deck which is to be removed. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Construction on Public Lands Permit, (fee waived), to Carole Munson, 4729 Island View Drive, to allow construction of a walkway to connect the two stairways on the Commons. Construction to be according to code. (LOT 6, BLOCK 7, DEVON) The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk DRIVE lEtO ~t~. N 91514 .10/117/2,1 MUNSON, CAJ~OL ~CE SURVEYING & ENGINE RING CO ~OS.~ ~. 101 MJs~o~b, MN$$~ P~xK(61~)474~ E SURVEYFO~ ~ROL MUNSON NOV 13 19~ klOIX) KAJS~G t t q729 Island View Drive Devon :)7870 Carole Munson 12-29-88 Lot 6 Block 7 30-117-23 22 O05q Survey_ no R-2 MINUTES OF A NEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK ~D OPEN 5P&CE COHNISSION JULY 9, 1992 Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey reviewed the history of the unpaid dock fees. Ms. Munson reviewed her version and reasons for not paying. It was noted that since Ms. Munson paid her fee on June 1st, a late fee of $10 for June is due and now a late fee for July is due, resulting in a total due of $40.00. HOTION made by Asleson, seconded by~nderson to recommend ~s. ~unson pay a $20 late fee and approve her dock license for 1992. Motion carried $ to were~ Byrnes, ~nders ~ ,~--, ..... I. Those in favor Hueller opposed, o_~ -~v~una, casey and Asleson. This issue will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. June 23, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Carole Munson 4729-Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Munson: This letter is a follow up to recent communications regarding your 1992 dock fees. As of June 23, 1992, I have not received your $30 late fee mentioned in my 5-28-92 (should have been dated 6-2-92) letter. If this $30 fee is not paid by the end of the work day on July 1, 1992, I will request that this be an agenda item on the July 9, 1992 meeting of the Parks and Open Space Commission. .Please call me at 472-0613 with any questions. Sincerely, Tom McCaff~ey ~ Dock Inspector cc .' Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director File prlnted on recycled paper Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive - Dock Site #42314 Chronological History of Unpaid Dock Fees for 1992 3-2_?-92 4-24-92 5-11-g2 5-28-92 5-29-92 5-29-92 6-1-92 6-1-92 6-2-92 6-23-92 7-6-92 During inventory of Devon Commons, Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey talked with Ms. Munson and mentioned he had not received dock fees to-date. She said her accountant forgot several of her bills and she would talk to him. Tom McCaffrey left word on Ms. Munson's recorder that payment for dock fees has not been received. Letter mailed to Ms. Munson asking for dock fees and outlining non-compliance and revocation. Certified letter was received by Ms. Munson on 5-15-92. Letter from McCaffrey mailed to Ms. Munson notifying her of recommendation to revoke her dock license to be heard by the City Council at their meeting on June 9, 1992. Certified letter was received by Ms. Munson on 5-29-92. Ms. Munson called McCaffrey, however, he was on the phone, she did not wait. Richard N. Indritz called discussed with McCaffrey the late dock fees. It was agreed that if a check for $190 ($150 + $40 late fee) plus the LMCD fee was dropped off this weekend, McCaffrey would accept it. If it was received Monday, it would be an additional $10 because of the June late fee. He said her intention was to pay the dock fees. Letter sent from Mr. Indritz requesting more time and stating he feels payment will be made shortly. He reference $190 plus the LMCD fee and mentioned the addition $10 late fee. Ms. Munson stopped in at City Hall and submitted a check in'the amount of $188 and commented that her attorney said the late fee was suppose to be $20. The check was accepted by staff based on Ms. Munson's statement. McCaffrey left a message on Ms. Munson's recorder requesting the $30 late fee be brought in to City Hall or mailed. Letter by McCaffrey (incorrectly dated 5-28-92) detailing fees due and asking for the $30 late fee. Letter from McCaffrey stating that if fees are not received by July 1, 1992 he will put on agenda for Park and Open Space Commission on July 9, 1992. Cards were left at her residence advising her of a registered letter waiting to be picked-up at the post office on 6-29-92 and 7-1-92. McCaffrey mailed to Ms. Munson a copy of the letter dated 6-23-92 with a note advising her this item will be on the 7-9-92 Park and Open Space agenda. CITY of MOUND 524~ k:AYWO©D ROAD MOUND MI,'~NESOTA 55364- :6'2' FAX ,6~2~ 4?2-¢620 May 11, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Munson: This is a follow-up to our recent conversations concerning your unpaid dock and LMCD boat fees. As we discussed, your dock is installed at Mound City Dock Site $42314 and your boat 8847DJ is moored at that dock. _ Please pay your dock and LMCD fees within ten (10) days or remove your dock and boat. I will be by to inspect your dock ten (10) days from your receipt of this letter. If you are not in compliance at that time, I will recommend the revocation of your dock license. Enclosed is a copy of Section 437:10, Subdivision 8 which deals with noncompliance and license revocation. If you have questions, please call me at 472-0613. Sincerely, T~oT McCa ~ Dock Inspector TM:pi Enclosure CIT I' of ~ay 28, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Munson: This letter is a follow-up to my letter to you dated May 11, 1992 which informed you of your delinquent payment for your dock license and LMCD boat fees for 1992. A ten (10) day period was given to you (Section 437:10 Subd. 8) to pay the outstanding fees, remove your dock and boat, or submit an appeal to the City Manager. As of 5-26-92 an appeal had not been received, therefore, a site inspection was conducted by myself on 5-27-92. The result of this inspection was that your dock and boat are still located at Mound City Dock Site $42314 which does not comply with Mound City Code Section 437. At this time I am notifying you, according to Section 437:10, Subd. 9 "Notice of Revocation,, that I will be recommending to the City C°u'ncil revocation of your dock license for the remainder of the 1992 season and all of 1993 (Section 437:20 Penalties), at their regular meeting on June 9, 1992 at Mound City Hall, 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions, please call me at 472-0613. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director File Enclosures printed on recycled paper Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 8 dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shot. lands under the control of the City. (ORD. t40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License ~evocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly maintained or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager Or any other officer designated by the City Manager, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Sub& 9. Notice 9f Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. winter Dock storage. per, it holders: Winter dock storage by a® Docks may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: . The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. 2-25-91 Hound Cit¥¢ode Section 437:15 8ectton 437~15o aximum Dimensions o lb~ted Desk n o ck . Docks for Yhich a license is required this Section 437:15 by shall not be less than 24~ wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, ?, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of 36", using Lake Mlnnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24# wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with*the conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45- 1990 - 12-29-90) 8ectioa 437~20. · a~_~!~~. Any persorl or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license a required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this 437. Section Removal. of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the Czty Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person cony .v.tolating City ordinances relatln- t~ ~^~- - · .... l_cted of 11cense for the present o~ ~ ~ *-~--~.~u .~.zzz ~e issued a dock 8ubd. 437~25. cen~_~~. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. (ORD. ~53-1991, 12-23-91) 12-23-91 ROGER W. REED Real Property Law Specialist° PAUL I_ POND Cetfllled Civil Trial Sl~clallst° 'Cedlfled by the I~nnesota State Bar Association REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHOREUNE DRIVE RO. BOX 9 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009 PHONE (612) 472-2222 FAX (612) 472-2254 RICHARD N. INDRITZ LINDA ESEHTHER DONALD F. NOACK, JR. KAY L. DUNN WENDY I- LEWIN L~gal Assistants May 29, 1992 Hr. Tom M¢Caffrey Dock Inspector Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1667 Carole Munson Dock Permit Dock Site No. 42314 Dear Mr. McCaffrey: Ms. Munson contacted me on Friday, May 22, regarding your letter dated May 11 notifying her that her dock permit fees were delinquent and the dock and boat would have to be removed within 10 days if not paid. Ms. Munson was out of town at the time your letter was sent and did not receive it until her return. The letter was accepted by her neighbor as can be verified. Ms. Munson has been awaiting for receipt of the City Council Resolution approving the Maintenance Permit for the boathouse and other lakeshore improvements. This has been received and payment will be made. I request that no irrevocable decisions be made at this time, and be allowed additional time to make payment to the dock fees from the date of her actual receipt of her letter in accordance with its language. It is my understanding that the payment will be made shortly. Very truly yours, Richard N. Indritz ~ RNI: sp cc: Carol~ Munson PS In accordance with our telephone conversation on May 29, I understand that Ms. Munson will be allowed additional time to pay the dock permit fees for the above referenced site. The total cost is $190.00 91US LMCD boat permit fees. The cost will be an additional $10.00 for additional late fees if received after June 1st. Thank you for your ass~~ CITY of MOUND May 28, 1992 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364..,: ~- (612) 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Munson: This letter is a follow-up to my message I left on your recorder on 6-1-92. You paid a $150 basic fee, a $20 late fee and an $18 LMCD fee for a total of $188. You~ correct amount due was $218 broken down as follows: $150 $ 20 $ 30 $ 18 $218 basic fee late fee for the month of March late fee of $10 for each April, May and June LMCD fee TOTAL DUE This was covered with Richard N. Indritz by me on 5-29-92. I reviewed with him the ability to alleviate the additional $10 late fee for June if you left a check for $190 + $18, or $208 in our mail slot during the weekend. When I have received the additional $30 I will inspect your dock and issue a 1992 license. If you have any questions, please call me at 472-0613. Sincerely, Tom McCa Dock Inspector cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director File Enclosures CITY of N, IOUND June 23, 1992 Ms. Carole Munson 4729 'Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Munson: This letter is a follow up to recent communications regarding your 1992 dock fees. As of June 23, 1992, I have not received your $30 late fee mentioned in my 5-28-92 (should have been dated 6-2-92) letter. If this $30 fee is not paid by the end of the work day on July 1, 1992, I will request that this be an agenda item on the July 9, 1992 meeting of the Parks and Open Space Commission. Please call me at 472-0613 with any questions. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey~ Dock Inspector cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director File ~ printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC L~.lqDS NAINTENANCE PERNIT TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COI41,fONS ABUTTING 2885 CAKBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10, BLOCK 35, RYCHWOOD, DOCK BZTE #51435 WHEREAS, Bill Schumer, owner and resident of 2885 Cambridge Lane, Mound, MN has applied for a Public Lands Maintenance Permit to allow reconstruction of a stairway on Brighton Commons, and; RHEREAB, City Code Section 320 states, "No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members." And; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval as recommended by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Public Lands Maintenance Permit to allow a reconstruction of a stairway on Brighton Commons, abutting 2885 Cambridge Lane, Lot 10, Block 36, Wychwood, Dock Site #51435 for Bill Schumer, subject to the following ae The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. be Proper erosion control measures shall be taken to maintain and establish vegetation on the site as approved by the Parks Director. Permit expires five (5) years from the date of city Council approval, upon which time, renewal is required. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 9v 1992 LACE STAIRWAY BY BILL 8CHUMER 2885 CAHBRIDGB . The Parks Director reviewed the applicant,s request to replace a stairway on Brighton Commons. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official.' Proper erosion control measures shall be taken to maintain and establish vegetation on the site as approved by the Parks Director Permit expires five (5) years from the date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to recommended approval of the Maintenance Permit as requested and as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534I MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ~612i 472-1155 FAX (6!2~ 472-0620 DATE: July 9, 1992 Park & Open Space Commission Meeting TO: Park and Open Space Commission and Applicant FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Director APPLICANT: Bill Schumer ADDRESS: 2885 Cambridge Lane, Wychoowd, Block 36, Lot 10 COMMONS: Brighton Commons DOCK SITE: 51435 CLASS: C SUBJECT: Public Lands Maintenance Permit Application BACKGROUND: The applicant was notified by the Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey of the Public Lands Permit requirements as detailed in the attached notice dated 6-18-92. The applicant had initially intended to only replace some rotted treads but has now decided to replace the whole stairway system to code. COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the site and met with the applicant and discussed the code application to the proposed stairway. The building code allows a maximum of an 8 inch rise and a minimum of a 9 inch tread with the largest rise or run not to exceed the smallest by more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. A landing is required in each 12 feet of vertical distance, this results in a maximum of 18 steps before an intermediate landing is required. In addition, an approved gripable handrail is required by the code to be mounted from 34" to 38" off the nosing (please note the attached handouts). printed on recycled paper Staff Report July 9, 1992 Bill Schumer .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. e Proper erosion control measures shall be taken to maintain and establish vegetation on the site as approved by the Parks Director. Permit expires five (5) years from date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. JS:pj Attachment: Stairway/Handrail Handout P.S. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 28, 1992. HANDRAIL Sec, 330~/,1[ ' ~34"-38" 6'8" MINIMUM 4" MIN. RISE 8" MAXIMUM RISE .MINIMUM RUN OCCUPANT LOAD LESS TITAN 10 (Private Stairway) MAXMIMUM TREAD RUN VARIATION OF 3/8 INCH MAXIMUM RISER VARIATION OF 3/8" H,~gp RM/.. Ma4/~Rep 1'o Tc, l2 oF R~dL. Sec. 33( MINIMUM'~i 4" MIN. RISE 7" MAXIMUM RISE '~"~'""? OCCUPANT ., ,. .,. . ~:: ,'~ ~.':~. :.; .;.~.. .. ~. '~': ....'. ..-'., 6'8' MINIMUM N~ ACCEPTABLE · Rev£§ed 2/~8/92 (Public. Ap) Application for PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT CITY OF MOUND, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 ~92 MOUND P~NNtNG & INSP. MN 55364 Distribution: Building Official Watershed DNR Date Received Park Meeting Date ~u/~ ~ City Council Date .\~ ~ / TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERNHT - new construction or improvement, NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND. PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT - to maintain or repair an existing structure '--' LAND ALTERATION - change inshoreline, drainage, slope, trees, fill, ! etc. ADDRESS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY ~(~-'~'~'~ ~'~/'h OWNER'S N~E ~:'~[ ~ ~~ O~ER'S DAY PHONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY: ~(s) /~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ SHORE~D C~SSIF[CATION APPLIC~T'S N~E & ADDRESS (if different) CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK CONTRACTOR' S ADDRESS CONTRACTOR' S LICENSE # PHONE VALUATION/PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) :~~~ eoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeoeeeee eeeeeeeeeee ee PARK COt~ISSION , Approved , Denied DATE CITY COUNCIL Approved Denied DATE 5o3 'S 7"/I-t,,- · .'f'o CoD~- ?_ C:ITY of MOL:ND DATE: do -'1,,° - 9 D, 6t2 :-2 DOCK SITE TO: ~ ;La Today I was at your dock site to inspect for issuance of your 1992 permit tag. Your dock was not approved for the following reasons: Please correct the above within seven (7) days and I will return to issue your 1992 tag. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully, Tom McCaffrey ~' / Dock Inspector pJ DOCK7 printed on recycled paper ~- Wood romp 3 ft. wide Rock and conc. -pillars -2Pt x 2f t Sfone fence Conc. ret. high // /0 ret. wall COMMON. wall ' - .. fndi 9 2885 Cambridge Road William Schumer 8-31-88 Wychwood Lot lO Block 2q-117-24 ool 7 38010/6750 June 8, 1992 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 612~ 472-1155 FAX f6!2~ 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION FRAN CLARK, CMC - CITY CLERK TAX FORFEIT LOTS PID #13-117-24 12 0067 (LOT 1, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD) PID #13-117-24 12 0069 (LOT 15, BLOCK 13, DREAMWOOD) The following are comments from the various departments regarding these two lots. Sewer & Water Dept. - Lot 15 has water & sewer service off of Eagle Lane. There are no records for water or sewer to Lot 1. Park Dept. - It is not connected to a park. Has mature trees. Seems to be more appropriate to sell to adjoining property owners. Street Dept. - They have no need for these lots. Building Dept. - The lots were reviewed by the Building Official and the City Planner. It is their opinion, based on the information available, that if the lots were combined, in all likelihood it would be buildable with a building envelope of approximately 24' x 100' in size. This narrow envelope is undesirable according to the City Planner and his first choice would be to release each separate parcel for sale to the adjacent property owner. PID #19-117-23 32 0128 (LOT 26, BLOCK 11, WYCHWOOD) This lot was conveyed to the City in 1974 as wetlands. If you go out and look at this lot, it is not wetlands. It could be released for sale to an adjoining property owner because as it stands, it is not a buildable lot. printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 TAX FORFEITED LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR SALE= 1) 13- ~17-24 12 0067 & 0069, AND 2) 19-117-23 32 0128. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend that these parcels be released for sale to the adjoining property owners only, as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. MTI4UT~.S OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 9, 1992 ~~EITED LOTS - REVIEW FOR PO'~'~ .......... ' 117-24 12 0067 & 006a ~., ~, .. ~_n_~ K~EASE FOR SALE: I 13- MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Mueller to recommend that the tax forfeited parcels not be released until the Park Commission has completed the Nature Conservation Areas Study. Motion carried unanimously. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ;6'~2, 472-! !55 FAX ~612~472 0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 23, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION The Halstead Acres Improvement Association has applied for a multiple dock license from the LMCD. The LMCD, by policy, refers these applications to the appropriate cities to verify compliance with local regulations. We regulate these dock sites under Section 436 - Commercial Boat Docks. Section 436 applies if dock spaces for three or more boats are provided. TM:pj printed on recycled paper CIT~ OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA COMMERICAL DOCK APPLICATION/RENEWAL NA~E OF BUSINESS EXACT LOCATION OF BUSINESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT .,, BLOCK P H o N E. F SUBDIVISION PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION: A drawing to scale of the type, size and shape of the dock proposed, and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used. 'A drawing to scale of off-street parking provided for each three rental boat stalls, buoys or slips. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated for the dock proposed· Payment of permit fee must be included with this application. All applications received ~ og/~a~r March 1 shall be .subject to a la,e fee~__$~ New Applicant F~e~ L~ $200.00 _ Ba i~ Fee Renewal 150.00 .~-~Number of Slips in Water ~Number of Boats Stored on Land ~/$2.00 : TOTAL v- - ~nature- ~n~ 'Title of Otl~lo~ }, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGAL D£~CRIPT!ON AP PREMISES SURVEYED: Outlot 1, tlALSTEAD ACRE~ 2NO ADDITION This sur~ev intends to show the boundaries of the aboue descrihe~ proDerty, and the location of an existino fence, dock and linht FEB 3 1992 Iron marker found pole thereon. It does not Purport to show any other improvements Rearings shown are datum. RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION AUTHORI~IN~ NAYOR ~%ND CITY 14~.NA~ER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT ~GREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBi~N HENNEPIN COUNTY COHI~UNITY DEVELOPHENT BLOCK GRAL'T PROGRAH WHEREAS, the City of Mound has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1992~ (Year XVIII) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purposes of the program and the city is a subrecipient under the program and received a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to execute Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number A09662, on behalf of the City. Contract No. A09662 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and CITY OF MOUND, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in cooperation with Subrectptent, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, $. 70,588,00 from Federal Fiscal Year 1992 CDBG funds has been approved by Recipient for use by Subreciptent for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity/les as included in and a part of the 1992 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and as set forth in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subreciptent agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1991, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on August 20, 1991, and in the 1992 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. ~COPE OF SERVICES Ao The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, "Statement of Work," subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity/les which it is implementing. TERM OF A~REEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1992. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1993, or at such time as the activity/les constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subreciptent shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1. THIRD ~ART¥ ~REEMENTS The Subreciptent may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrectptent shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement which are a substantial change shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved, and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. Ail Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, resulting in more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater, in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi-community activities will be used in determining substantial change. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subreciptent with CDBG funds not to exceed $ 70,588,00 to enable the Subrectpient to carry out its CDBG- eligible activity/les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity/les, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subreciptent for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subreciptent has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. INDEMNIT~ AND INSURANCE A. The Subrectptent does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses claims, suits or Judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit -or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. The Subrecipient,s liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. C_ONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrectpient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. DATA PRIVACY The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient,s unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. S~USPENSION OR TEI~MINATIO~ A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute to endanger the noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient,s default is .excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. Co This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. Do CDBG funds allocated to the Subrectptent under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subreciptent under this Agreement which remain unobltgated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. P. EVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement. Or, Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrectpient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/les. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement 12. requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity~les. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMEN~ A. The Subrectpient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity/les. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrectpient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the UniformRelocatton Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subreciptent shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity~les. The Subrectpient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and'HUD implementing regulations at'~24 CFR42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(ll) of the Act. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing neces'sary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient accomplish this task. 14. LABOR STANDARDS. k~4PLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTINC The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities .undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to-ensure compliance with these requirements. 15, pRO(;RAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: ao The Subreciptent will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Statement of Work in Exhibit 1 specifically permits the Subrectpient to retain program income. The Subrectpient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrectpient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the ~vbr~ciplent in establishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. That in the event of close-out or change in status of the Subrectptent, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 16. psg OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrectpient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: ao The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. Bo The Subreeipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. Any program income generated from the d~sposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Ao During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. The Subrecipient will furnish all'information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY Ao The Subrectpient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. When and where applicable, the Subreciptent shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accomodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD-BASED PAINT The Subreclpient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING 22. The Subrectpient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity/les subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. LOBBYING No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in 'connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subreciptent has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its Jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subreciptent shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (J) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTAN¢~ The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrectpient in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26. RECORDKEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure Of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for tnspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non-CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrectpient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrectpient for the purpose of reviewing the same. 28.. The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98-502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not retmburseable from CDBG funds. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrectpient's non-CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 19~, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally' valid and binding. Assistant Cou~y ~t~ey COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chairman of its County Board And: Deputy/Associate County Administrator Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: SUBRECIPIENT: Assistant County Attorney Date: By: Its: And: Its: Attest: Title: The City is organized pursuant to: __ Plan A __ Plan B __ Charter Contract No. A09662 SUBRECIPIENT ACREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COlflf~NITY DEVELOPHENT BLOCK 6P, ANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 STATEMENT OF WORK The following activity/les shall be carried out by the City of Mound under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below. Up to $70,588 are to be provided in Urban Henneptn County CDBG funds to the City of Mound to assist in the funding of the following activities in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified: Attachment A. #087 Downtown Plan $20,000 Attachment B. #088 Rehab of Private Property 15,823 Attachment C. #089 WeCAN/Operations 7,500 Attachment D. #090 Westonka Intervention 5,700 Attachment E. #091 Westonka Senior Center-Oper 21.565 Total $70,588 CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEHENT ATTACNHENT A TO STATEMENT OF WORK 4. 5. 6. ACTIVITY: Downtown Plan LOCATION: ADDRESS: Commerce Blvd Between Bartlett to 3 Points CENSUS TRACT: 276.01 NUMBER: 087 BUllET: $20,000 BENEFIT: Planning/Administration DESCRIPTION: The city will use project funds to employ a contract consultant to initiate implementation of the recently completed Economic Development Study for Downtown Mound. The consultant will document the area as an eligible slum/blight project area and complete the required environmental assessment of the project area. Project funds will also be used to assist the rehab of private businesses in the project area and to undertake public improvements in support of the downtown revitalization effort. This is a multi-year activity. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [ ] Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subreciptent and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subreciptent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. iX] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. iX] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: IX] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] ,,Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. IX] ~rocurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is tO be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost- reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. IX] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~ In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Prooerty Acquisitto~ The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Anttdisplacement and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occuptable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Henneptn County CDBG Program Antt-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] ~roDerty Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. TheSe'standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. [ ] Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570 208, relating to: ' [ ] Area Benefit [ ] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements CDBC YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEHENT ATTACHHENT B TO STATEMENT OF ~ORK 4. 6. [1 ACTIVITY: LOCATION: Rehabilitation of Private Property ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: NU'I4BER: 088 BUDGET: $15,823 BENEFIT: L/M (Housing) DESCRIPTION: Provide grants to eligible low/moderate income homeowners for improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation. GENERAL REQUIP. EM~NTS: Requirements with an "X' are applicable to this · activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. Supplemental Agreement Type: [ ] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subreciptent Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. - iX] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. iX] ~nvironmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 SubP'~t'E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) iX] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] ~rocurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-. reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] ~niform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential Antidtsplacemeng and Relocatio~ Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Antt-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] .Land DispOsition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. iX] .Low and Moderate Incoma Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570 208 relating to: ' ' [ ] Area Benefit [ ] Limited Clientele iX] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Re~uirement~ CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT C TO STATEHENT OF WORK 4. 5. 6. o ACTIVITY: Westonka Community Action Network/Operations LOCATION: ADDRESS: 5600 Lynwood Boulevard CENSUS TRACT: 276.01 NUMBER: 089 BUDGET: $7,500 BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele) DESCRIPTION: Assist a social service referral office serving low- and moderate-income households within the W~stonka area. Project funds will be used for rental of office space, payment of telephone bills, and salary support of a full-time program director. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [X] Non-Profit Agency . WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. iX] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [X] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunitt All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed fo~ the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost- reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] ~ectton 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~; In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to Iow and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] gesidentlal Anridisplacemen~ and Relocation Assistance All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Henneptn County CDBGProgramAnti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. iX] Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit iX] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Community Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirements CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT ACREEHENT ATTACHHENT D TO STATEMENT OF WORK ACTIVITY: Westonka Intervention LOCATION: ADDRESS: City~ide CENSUS TRACT: NUMBER: 090 BUDGET: $5,700 BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele) DESCRIPTION: Finance office support costs for a community-based organization which acts to prevent family violence through intervention. This mutlt-year activity is funded from the planning allocations. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 'Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] SuDolemental Agreement Type: iX] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified -herein. IX] Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. IX] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: IX] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) [ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost- reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [] Res dentia Antidis lacement and Relo at o A sista ce All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Henneptn County CDBGProgramAnti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Proverty Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved ln whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] _Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subreciptent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. IX] Low and Moderate Incom~ [] Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208 relating to: , [ ] Area Benefit [X] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention Prevention or Elimination of Slums and BlighL It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). [ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent Comaunity Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Re~uirements CDBG YEAR ][VIII SUBRECIPIENT ACREEMENT ATTACHMENT g TO STATEHENT OF WORK 4. 5. 6. o ACTIVITY: LOCATION: NUMBER: BUDGET: BENEFIT: Westonka Senior Center/Operations ADDRESS: Citywide CENSUS TRACT: 091 $21,565 L/M (Limited Clientele) DESCRIPTION: Fund part of the senior center's 1992-1993 operating budget. This is a multi-year activity. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this agreement. [X] Supplemental Agreement Type: [X] Non-Profit Agency . SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES [ ] Public Agency [ ] Other An agreement must be executed between subrectpient and any other agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrectpient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified herein. [X] Schedule Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December 31, 1993. [X] Environmental Review Record Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this activity has been determined as follows: [ ] Exempt (EX) [ ] Categorically Excluded (CE) IX] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX) [ ] Assessment Required (AR) [ ] Funds Released (FR) Date: [ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Ovvortunit~ All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act. All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60. [ ] Procurement Standards and ~uideltnes are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate. Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting construction bids. Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost- reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used for procuring professional services. [ ] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services. [ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition. [ ] Residential ^nttdisplacement and Relocatlo~ Asststancm All occupied and vacant occuplable low-moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBGProgramAnti-dtsplacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606. [ ] Property Management The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement. [ ] Land Disposition Agreement This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrectptent community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period. iX] .Low and Moderate Income Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208, relating to: [ ] Area Benefit iX] Limited Clientele [ ] Housing [ ] Job Creation or Retention [ ] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: [] [] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1). Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not located in a slum or blighted area must be described. [ ] Urgent COmmunity Need It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5. Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months) condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. [ ] Other Requirement~ RESOLUT1'ON NO. 92- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGRE~NT WITH SOUTII~EST NETRO DRUG TASK FORCE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota authorizes entering into a cooperative agreement with the Office of Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the project entitled, "Southwest Metro Drug Task Force" during the period from January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Mound Police Department. 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 I certify that the above resolution was by the City Council of the City of Mound on July 28, 1992. Signed: Witnesseth: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager Francene C. Clark City Clerk Date: Date: BILLS. July 28, 1992 BATCH 2072 $84,711.72 TOTAL BILLS $84,711.72 t I I I GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Depar tmen ts Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1998 BUDGET'REVENUE REPORT JUNE 1998 JUNE YTD REVENUE 50.[)% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1188250 1859 3718 1184532 0.31~ 820900 28565 56593 ?6430? 6.89~ 3860 1300 3079 181 94.45~ 69500 9738 43273 86227 68.26~ 41250 1807 7803 33447 18.92Z 75000 4?95 27205 47795 36.27% 10000 1380 877? 1883 87.77~ 51250 1475 3801 47449 7.42% 2259410 50313 154249 2105161 6.83Z FIRE FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND RECYCLING FUND CEMETERY FUND 221600 27159 15118? 70413 68.23% 1180000 107943 537529 642471 45.55~ 350000 28114 156810 193190 44.80~ 650000 51469 312845 337155 48.13% 71000 884 ?0835 165 99.??~ 118730 3501 21313 97417 17.95~ 3200 30 3180 20 99.38~ CITY OF MOUND 1992 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES .JUNE 1992 50. OY, BUDGET JUNE YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 67280 1587 36340 30940 54.01~ Cable TV 1380 0 848 532 61.45~ City Manager/Clerk 166790 12296 82249 84541 49.31Z Elections 14800 47 3577 11223 24.17Z Assessing 46260 44 247 46013 0.53~ Finance 147090 14555 69931 77159 47.54~ Computer 31000 5075 e07ee 10278 66.85x Legal 83950 7871 26596 57354 31.68~ Police 744890 ?8366 387078 357812 51.96~ Civil Defense 3350 449 1086 2264 32.42~ Planning/Inspections 127000 14179 70988 56012 55.90~ Streets 402900 39730 195394 2O75O6 48.50X Shop & Stores 20180 1567 6486 13694 32.14~ City Property 90150 5415 47517 42633 52.71~ Parks 132990 18997 58211 74779 43.77~ Summer Recreation 31610 9894 9894 21716 31.30~ Contingencies 20000 1736 6978 13022 34.89~ Transfers 119730 9398 56386 63344 47.09X 281806 1080528 1170822 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2251350 Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Recycling Fund Cemetery Fund Docks Fund 47199~ 881600 15882 92478 129128 41.73X 178920 13282 92979 85941 51.97~ 353060 53409 192782 160278 54.60~ 971190 76497 353709 617481 36.42~ 100900 14323 53199 47701 52.72~ 4230 153 1705 2525 40.31Z 46850 6061 25854 20996 55.18~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee Minutes 8:35 am, Tuesday, July 14, 1992 City of Wayzata Council Chambers PRESENT: Committee Chair $oEllen Hurr, LMCD Board members Jim Grathwol, Excelsior; George Owen, Victoria; Fred BruntJen, City of Excelsior; Frank Kelly, City of Greenwood; Mike Gaffron, City of Orono; Carolyn Dindorf, Hennepin Conservation District; Tom McDowell, Hennepin Parks; Executive Director Gene Strommen. ABSENT: LMCD Board members Doug Babcock, Scott Carlson, Tom Penn, Bob Rascop, Dave Cochran, Tom Reese, Paul Neumann, Carver Soil & Water Conservation District; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Dick Osgood, Freshwater Foundation; Gray Freshwater Biological Institute; MN PCA; MN Board of Water & Soil Resources. INTRODUCTIONS: New appointee for Excelsior, Fred Bruntjen, was welcomed by Chair Hurr~ along with guest Mike Gaffron, Orono city staff. LAKE MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT. Hurr reported that the LMCD Board approved the $1,000 funding to proceed on the Lake Monitoring program. However, the LMLOA re-assessed their position at the 6/24 LMCD Board meeting~ stating they had not actually committed the $1,000 and were exploring other options to conduct this monitoring. Hurr subsequently looked for an outside sponsor for the $1,000, and received a pledge from Tonka Bay Marina. The next step is that of organizing the volunteers to do the monitoring on the 37 sites. Dindorf agreed to help in conducting a volunteer orientation. Dindorf then presented a Data Summary of 1949-1991 readings of Total Phosphorus (TP), Chlorophyll A (CLA), and Secchi Disc (SD) she was able through the Storette national computer data base. Dindorf's observations noted: * This data has limited value since most of it is not very current, mid '80s on average, or less. * Sampling sites are few and not consistent as to place on the lake -- some on shore, others in mid-lake area * CLA and TP sampling data is lacking in recent years. * Some bays have no sampling data at all. * Ug/L was defined as micrograms per liter or parts per million CPPM). A management plan suggestion of 50 ug/L guideline is not appropriate for the entire lake, too stringent for some bays, others being already better than that. £NVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, Minutes, ?/14/92, P. 2 Chemical sampling by volunteers was discussed. Dindorf advised this should be done by trained technicians for TP and CLA. BruntJen suggested volunteers could help reduce time and costs by providing boats and assisting the technicians. Hurt and Dindorf will begin the preparations for organizing and training volunteers so the program could get underway in August. TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES, IMPACTS ON WETLANDS. Hurr offered a brief background on the upgrading of Highway 12 west through Long Lake and Orono. She cited environmental protection statements from the LMCD Management Plan. These statements charge LMCD to protect Lake Minnetonka from water quality degradation due to the rate, volume and quality of runof~ from development of lands within the lake's watershed. Mike Gaffron, assistant planning and zoning administrator, Orono, presented illustrations of the three alternate' routes. Each route has some impact on wetlands, including expanding the current route. The southern route would take it through a major portion o£ Orono. It comes within 3,000' of Stubs Bay, and intersects Painters Creek marsh as well as Clasen Creek. Drainage control structures would be required by MCWD It was further pointed out that the new roadbed will add some 50 acres of hardcover in the 5 miles it passes through Orono, which is equivalent to the impact of 250 homes. It will also attract substantial new development in an area of the city Orono planned to have 5 acre minimum residential sites. Hurr believes the effect on people's interests and lives will influence the eventual outcome of the road. Orono is also willing to give Long Lake some land to offset a part of their land lost from the tax roles which the highway would require. Dindorf noted that the new wetland conservation act requires protection to wetlands which calls for an effort to either avoid, minimize or mitigate losses to wetlands. Hurt noted that the scoping document requires a comment today. A letter on behalf of the Environment Committee to the MN DOT expressing concern for protecting the wetlands and assure LMCD is kept involved in the environmental impact phase of the highway development. The committee agreed Hurr should cite the committee's concerns on behalf of LMCD. AGENCY/LAKE ASSOCIATION REPORTS~ HENNEPIN PARKS. Tom McDowell reported Lake Auburn and Zumbra in the Carver Park Reserve received 2.4d herbicide treatments for Eurasian water milfoil. Water curtains are being tested ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, Minutes, ?/14/92, P. 3 to contain the chemical in the area treated. The Parks Board has also expressed its frustration with MN DNR position on not directly funding any portion of Eurasian water milfoil (EWM) treatment programs in the metro area this year. McDowell then pointed out a public reception planned for 6:00 pm, Thursday, July 23, at the Norenberg Gardens. Entertain- ment, refreshments and presentations are planned. The park will be closed starting after Labor Day in September, 1992, until May, 1994, for major renovations to meet Park District plans. The committee was urged to attend. HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT. Dindorf reported that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has allocated $150,000 for EWM control programs in the county. It will be taking applications from agencies and organizations for traditional as well as scientifically-supported innovative treatment programs. Funding is expected to be allocated as early as August. Matching funds will be required on all grants. ORONO STYROFOAM CONTROL ORDINANCE. Hurr reported that the LMCD Water Structures Committee is recommending all water structures be governed under this ordinance, such as swim rafts, not just docks. The committee also is recommending one date for eventual compliance, such as 1/1/95, rather than a gradual phase-in over three years as suggested in the Orono draft. This is being communicated to the City of Orono for their guidance upon review by the LMCD board. NEXT MEETING. meeting date. Tuesday, August 11, was announced as the next The meeting adjourned at 10:05 am. Executive Director BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Reese, Vice Chair Mound Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park J. P. Boswinkel, Treasurer Mlnnetonka Beach Scolt Carlson Minnetrista Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hun' Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612/47~ EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 14, 1992 Valerie Reinaas Hinnesota Department of Transportation 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Hinnesota 55422 Dear Hs. Reinaasz The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LHCD) appreciates the opportunity to connnent on the Highway 12 corridor development plans. As an organization it is charged to coordinate the efforts of the numerous agencies involved in lake management for Lake Hinnetonka. Our newly adopted Hanagement Plan for Lake Hinnetonka (December 1991) was formulated in conjunction with the 14 lakeshore cities, Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Carver County, the Hennepin Con- servation District, the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Hetropolitan Council, and the Hinnesota Department of Natural Resources. One of the goals of the plan was to create an environment committee made up of the above-mentioned agencies. The consensus of those in attendance at our meeting today was to reaffirm the following statement from our management plan~ A major threat to the water quality of the lake is the rate, volume and quality of runoff from the development and redevelopment of lands within the watershed of the lake. Urbanization and redevelopment add more impervious surfaces like building roofs, driveways, parking lots and roadways, which increase the rate and volume of runoff. Increased run- off collects and carries more soil, vegetative matter, chemicals and heavy metals. The Environmental Impact Statement that will be done needs to address the impact of a new roadway when the existing road will clearly not be abandoned, nor will existing wetland encroachment be restored. The proposal to add approximately 50 acres of hardcover to the rural area of the watershed of Lake Minnetonka must be carefully evaluated. One corridor proposal comes within 3,000 feet of LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Valerie Reiuaas July 14, 1992 Pase 2 Stubbs Bay. The increased development pressure o[ a ne~ road could bring vast quantities of additional hard cover. The LMCD Board of Directors is very concerned and wishes to take an active role in the drafting and processing of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Highway 12 corridor proposal which will precede this significant project. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT JoEllen L. Hurr Environment Committee Chair cl I~CD Directors Action Report: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Water Structures Committee Meeting: 7:30 a.m.. Saturday, July 11, 1992 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata. Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; James Orathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurt, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shore- wood; Duane Markus, Wayzata. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. Big Island, Inc., Mahpiyata Island, Orono The committee received the report of the Public Hearing held on 6/24/92 and Findings in the matter of a new multiple dock li- cense application by Ralph Hatch, Big Island. Inc.. for 14 boat storage units' (BSU) at its site on Mahpiyata Island, Orono, on Lower Lake South. : Thibault .exhibited the dock site plan. The executive direc- tor reported the City of Orono is aware of the application and it meets the City's requirements for the number of slips. The site plan includes ten transient slips and four slips designated for over night storage for members who wish to camp. Hatch said Orono has approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property, allowing a maximum of 15 slips. An application has been submitted to the city for a 1992 dock li- cense. It is noted the LMCD application is for 14 slips. MOTION: Babcock moved, Markus seconded, to recommend approval of a new Multiple Dock License for Big Island, Inc. for 14 boat storage units (BSU} at its site on Mahpiyata Island, Orono, Lower Lake South. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Multiple Dock Licenses, Subject to Village Certification A. North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono Thibault submitted a memo reviewing the history of North Shore Drive Marina's license from 1984 to the present. Babcock noted that when the 1991 license was approved the applicant was directed to submit designation of 6 service slips and 6 transient slips. As a result of a 2/13/92 meeting and subsequent discus- sion with the applicant, staff recommends approval of designating the 8 slips in the lagoon as staging area/transient slips to accommodate the rack customers and the service slips to be desig- nated as needed among the 85 storage slips. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the renewal of the Multiple Dock License of North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono. with the minor change of designating the 8 slips in the lagoon as staging area/transient slips with no over night storage to accommodate the rack customers, the 4 serv- ice slips to be designated as needed among the 85 storage slips. VOTE: Motion carried, Hurt abstaining. Hurt abstained because the City of Orono has a 1972 court order limiting the marina's dry stack storage to 20 units. - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 DISCUSSION It was explained that the LMCD dry stack ordinance was adopted in 1987. North Shore Drive Marina was licensed for 20 racks until 1988 when its license was changed to 72 rack storage spaces. The City of Orono maintains that a court order from 1972 restricts the marina to a maximum of 20 rack storage spaces. Markus asked how the LMCD can grant a license against a court order. Babcock said the LMCD was not included in the court order. Rascop said it is his opinion that the city has the final authority on dry stack storage or racks. The executive director explained that Orono had not advised LMCD of the dry stack ques- tion until this year. LMCD has no copy of the Orono court order. Babcock added that Orono allowed North Shore Drive Marina to operate with 72 units foR some years without objection. MOTION: Rascop moved, Orathwol seconded, to reconsider the motion to recommend approval. yOTE: Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Thibault reported that Orono has not formally ad- vised the LMCD that it has a problem with the 72 dry stack units. Orono Councilmember Gabriel Jabbour has shown the court order to LMCD staff, but was unable to provide a copy. MOTION: Hurr moved, Markus seconded, to table discussion of the North Shore Drive Marina multiple dock license renewal. VOTE: Motion carried, Babcock voting nay. STAFF QUESTIOH ON PROCEDURE: The executive director asked if the City of Orono should be left to pursue its resolution of its dry stack court order and LMCD abide by its licensing procedures? Orono has not issued a multiple dock license since 1984. Rascop said the LMCD should have a copy of the court order. Grathwol added it would'be helpful to all if the City of Orono would communicate directly with the LMCD. He would want to avoid the appearance of the LMCD denying the applicant due process. Thi- bault said she sent a copy of the memo dated 6/30/92 to Orono. She wondered if. she should be communicating further with Orono. Babcock said that if nothing further is heard from Orono within 30 days he would like to press forward with approval of the license. Babcock said North Shore Drive Marina meets the letter of the LMCD Code. Hurt responded that the applicant did not communicate all of the facts to the LMCD when it made the 1988 application for the change in dry stack storage from 20 units to 72 units considering the fact that the court order was dated 1972. Rascop suggested a cover letter to the City of Orono accom- pany the minutes of this meeting and if no response is received the committee will proceed under the LMCD code. Orathwol added he would not want the lack of communication to hold up the li- censing of the marina. 2 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 B. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono Thibault said the application for renewal of the Lakeside Marina multiple dock license is in order except for receipt of the as-built survey. It is her opinion that the surveyor is the cause of the delay as a result of phone contact with the survey- or. The survey is needed as a result of the docks having been brought back to 200' and configured per the approved site plan. MOTION: Hurt moved, Rascop seconded, to r~commend approval of the renewal of. the Lakeside Marina multiple dock license without change, subject to receipt of the as-built survey. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Hurt mentioned a dock which the applicant has built on the Crystal Bay side of the property. Thibault said he has been advised he will need a commercial license for the dock and that it must meet Orono's zoning regulations. C. Roger Wikner, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata. Thibault reported Wikner said he did not plan to renew his multiple dock license as he would have less than five boats. In doing the annual boat count, Thibault observed 3 cruisers and 2 jet skiis at his dock. She will contact Wikner advising he does need a license. 3. Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay, Wayzata The committee received a new site plan for Site 2, replacing the proposed platform shown on the 11/5/86 site plan with a smaller 6' x 40' seasonal make ready dock. Scott Spaeth, Commodore, Wayzata Yacht Club, explained the purpose of the new platform. The Lake Minnetonka Sailing School will use the dock for launching its boats during the season. He said it is an improvement over what was originally planned and provides a safer way of launching the boats. There will be no boat storage on the dock itself. Markus brought up the zoning on the property. He said the property is zoned residential, limiting it to townhouse or single family units. Markus submitted a copy of the deed restrictions on the property. He said approval of the new site plan would amount to allowing a commercial venture on a piece of residential property. Spaeth responded that the WYC is a non-profit organi- zation. Markus said the sailing school is a for-pay venture. Markus added that in addition to the zoning question there is a dispute on how the land runs. Spaeth said the WYC bas an agreement with the city for a CUP for the rest of the property and the use of both sites is includ- ed in the city Resolution. Grathwol commented that it is possi- ble to have a commercial marina in an area that is not commer- cial. The LMCD may use the word "commercial" with a different meaning than the City's definition. After briefly reviewing the restrictions on the deed submitted, Grathwol added that if there are private restrictions not involving the LMCD on a piece of property, the LMCD does not have authority to do anything about it. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 Hurr noted the license approvals on Site I and Site 2 were based on there being a valid CUP with the City of Wayzata. MOTION: Hurt moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the revised plan for the Wayzata Yacht Club Site 2, conditioned on a valid CUP existing between the Yacht Club and the City of Wayzata, and subject to meeting all LMCD dock license Codes with no boat storage on the platform. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Styrofoam in Dock Construction (Orono Ordinance) The committee received a copy of an ordinance proposed by the City of Orono prohibiting the use of non-encased styrofoam as a dock flotation device. Babcock suggested adding "including but not limited to" to the last line of Section I. Items I and 5. Hurr and Rascop indicated an interest in adopting a similar ordinance. Grathwol said the LMCD should get the benefit of Orono's public hearings before making a decision. Thibault reported White Bear Lake Conservation District has no ordinance, but it did establish a policy requiring replacement of styrofoam docks over a period of time as a condition of ap- proval for dock licenses. Hurr said she believes the 1/1/93 date in the Orono Ordi- nance is too soon. She would prefer a longer period of time for the dock owners to comply. Babcock and Markus thought a three year conversion date would be reasonable with a restriction prohibiting use of non-encased styrofoam for new construction of structures on Lake Minnetonka. There was-discussion o£-the-use_o_f__stynqfo~ jp~o~h~f_ struc- tures on the lake such as swimming platforms. The consensus of the committee is that styrofoam, unless encased, should be banned from the Lake. The City of Orono is to be forwarded a copy of this meet- ing's minutes, recommending to the Board that LMCD favor banning non-encased styrofoam from the lake on any structures placed in the Lake. The committee further recommends the Board approve deletion of 3.a and 3.b in the Ordinance, keeping 3.c requiring elimination of non-encased styrofoam by 1/1/95. 5. Storage of Commercial Watercraft at Residential Sites (Green- wood Ordinance) The committee received a copy of the City of Greenwood Ordinance prohibiting the storage of commercial watercraft in R-1 and R-2 residential districts. Babcock noted the Ordinance does not apply to rental of private dock spaces. He also noted the Ordinance is basically limited to charter boats by the reference to the watercraft having its own captain and crew. Gratbwol said this, again, uses the word "commercial" in a context different than that used by thc LMCD. The committee asked staff to forward copies of the Greenwood ordinance to the other cities and ask for their comments. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE 6. Review of Variance Fee of $500 July 11, 1992 Babcock expressed his concern about the $500 application fee charged for a residential dock length variance. He suggested lowering the variance fee for a residential dock length variance, which meets all setbacks, to the $200-$250 range. The executive director suggested a $200 application fee plus a $300 deposit to ensure that all LMCD costs involved are covered. Rascop suggest- ed amending the Code to allow dock extensions to 3' of water to avoid the variance situation if there are so many length vari- ances needed. Grathwol said he would like to know how often length vari- ances are required. If it is a minimal number, the cost of enforcement may be more than it is worth. Hurr suggested looking at computer generated variance orders which would not be as expensive as using the attorney. Thibault suggested that the lower application fee plus deposit be used for all variances. Hurt suggested using the term escrow fee rather than deposit fee to be more specific that the entire amount may not be refunded. MOTION: Rascop moved, Hurt seconded, to recommend a change in the Fee Resolution (#76) to charge a $250 application fee for all variances with a $250 escrow fee which would be used to cover additional costs incurred over the application fee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol said if a streamlined variance procedure is de- veloped it would be important that the Orders contain all of the reasons for granting or denying the variances for historical reference. 7. Review of Permanent Dock Definition. The committee received a memorandum from Thibault detailing the definition the LMCD uses for a Permanent Dock, that is, any dock which is not seasonally removed from the lake. The MnDNR defines a permanent dock as any dock other than seasonal docks. It then defines a seasonal dock as "a dock so designed and con- structed that it may be removed from the lake or stream on a seasonal basis. All components such as supports, decking and footings must be capable of removal by nonmechanized means". In the memo the staff recommends using the MnDNR definition of a seasonal dock. Rascop questioned the definition of "non- mechanized means". In his experience removal of any dock re- quires some mechanical assistance. Hurt said in most cases the docks which are left in over winter, not of a pile driven type, are better left in as there is less disruption of the Lake bot- tom. Rascop suggested perhaps docks over 150' in length should be removed or licensed as permanent docks. Babcock said he is of the opinion that the non-pile driven docks should be removed during the winter because they are a hazard to snowmobilers and in the spring contribute to debris floating in the Lake. It was agreed more information was needed from the MnDNR as to their definition of "nonmechanized" and the source of their 5 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 definitions. The MnDNR should be made aware that the LMCD is pursuing this matter to better match the MnDNR definitions. Discussion was continued to the next Water Structures Committee meeting. 8. Subcommittee Report on Non-restricted Watercraft at Multiple Docks and Off-lake Storage The subcommittee discussed the issue of non-restricted watercraft stored on slides, platforms or racks at licensed multiple docks and how they should be counted as boat storage units and watercraft storage units, per menlo of 6/30/92. DISCUSSION: The committee discussed the recommendations to limit the density of public facilities that qualify for a special density license to a density of 1:10 for restricted watercraft and to a maximum density of 1:7.5 with non-restricted watercraft counted. For multiple docks not qualifying for a special density license, the maximum density would be 1:50 for restricted water- craft and density of 1:37.5 when including non-restricted water- craft. The subcommittee also recomlnends counting non-restricted watercraft on slides, platforms or racks as .5 WSU. Babcock said the subcommittee is considering how to grandfa- ther the existing sites. It has been suggested that boats less than 12' not be counted at all. Rascop said he understood the current policy was that boats of less than 16' with motors of l0 hp or less were not counted. He would prefer amending the Code not to count the small boats rather than changing the density allowances. Rascop said he does not like the use of a fractional rate. Hurr said it is important to know how many boats are on the Lake. There was no action. The sUbC0mmii'ie~ -i's' meeting again-On 7/16 and any further recommendations will be considered at the next Water Structures Committee meeting. 9. Subcommittee Report on Expanded Sales at Gas Docks The subcommittee presented a report dated 7/7/92 including the section of the State Fire Marshal's Uniform Fire Code regula- tions regarding gas docks at marinas. Babcock noted that the State Fire Code specifically prohibits the selling of ship stores or merchandise from the area where fuel is dispensed into the tanks of the motorcraft. It also requires the dispensing units to be at least 20 feet from any activity involving fixed sources of ignition. Babcock stated the subcommittee recommends no change in the current Code. Rascop said he has noted the Minnetonka Boat Works, which made the original request, is already selling goods from its gas dock. He suggested sending a letter to the Minnetonka Boat Works quoting the State Fire Code. A copy of the letter should be sent to all other marinas that have gas pumps asking them to remove anything that does not comply. The executive director advised, the Code does not allow sales from the dock even though there is not a gas dock. - continued WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 MOTION: Babcock moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend denial of the Minnetonka Boat Works request to sell merchandise from their gas docks and to direct a letter to all multiple dock license holders who have gas dispensing equipment, quoting the State Fire Code. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Thibault will contact the other marinas, as she does her inspections, advising them of the LMCD Code prohibiting sales from the dock. 10. LCMR Grant Status, Funding for Access Sites The executive director reported the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) recommended the Lake Minnetonka access grant for $944,000. This is a preliminary allocation and there may a cut at the next step in the process. The funding could be used for acquisition of the Maxwell Bay access site, or other sites as recommended by the Lake Access Task Force. Hurt noted that this amount is not enough to cover all acquisition costs. The executive director recommended phone calls to one or another of the LC~R members prior to the actual allocation recom- mendations which will be made Wednesday, July 15, a memo and member roster provided. Any contact or feedback should be passed on to Cochran or Grathwol. ~arkus and Hurr were excused. 11. Staff Recommendations on Section 2.09 Deicing Equipment The committee received a memo from Thibault recommending a Code amendment to allow the Executive Director to issue deicing licenses under' certain conditions. The Staff also suggests adding a provision for waiving the license requirement for deic- ing equipment installed after March 15 of a given year. DISCUSSION: GrathWol said he would favor the executive director issuing the licenses as he does not feel there is a lot of dis- cretion involved. He would also favor the provision for waiving the license requirement for deicing after March 15. Babcock expressed concern about moving too fast on changing deicing regulations considering that a few years ago deicing was not allowed. He would like to keep the current controls. He could accept staff issuing license renewals if there were no previous violations. He feels the Board should see some of the applications. He also would want some kind of shore signing on any late season deicing to show the operation is in process. Grathwol said he has a certain resistance to signage. Rascop said he is mainly concerned about preserving the health and safety of the public. MOTION: Babcock moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend the Board amend the code to authorize the executive director to approve renewal deicing licenses where there was no previous year's violation, with new deicing licenses and those renewals which had WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE July 11, 1992 a previous year~s violation allowed by the executive director, subject to subsequent Board approval, and to waive the require- ment for licensing deicing which is started and conducted after March 15, such deicing operations to prominently display "thin ice" signs. yOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 12. New Multiple Dock and New Special Density Licenses Not Installed Babcock said he has studied the proposed ordinance relating to multiple dock licenses and special density licenses where facilities are not constructed as licensed within a certain time frame. The draft ordinance is not entirely as he envisioned. He will discuss his concerns with Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel. The matter was continued to a future meeting. 13. Bean's Greenwood Marina The committee received the draft Order regarding denial of the variance application of Bean's Greenwood Marina for a vari- ance to build additional dockage beyond 100'. MOTION: Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend approval of the Findings and Order denying a variance to build additional dockage beyond 100' at Bean's Greenwood Marina. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director reported James Bean is in the process of reconfiguring his~docks per the terms of the Order. 14. Deposit Refund MOTION: Babcock moved, Orathwol seconded, to recommend approval of a deposit refund of $100 to Stephen Garthwaite, 19725 Lakeview Ave., Deephaven, for his permanent dock which has been inspected and approved. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Babcock declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair CALL TO ORDER: at 7:30 p.m. DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 24, 1992 Tonka Bay City Hall The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran ROLL CALL: Members Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; James Orathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Duane Markus, Wayzata, (as noted); George Owen, Victoria; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Robert Pierce, Eurasian Water Milfoil Evaluator; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: ScOtt Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert Slocum, Woodland. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS: Cochran had no announcements. READING OF MINUTES: Reese moved, Owen seconded, approval of the minutes of the 4/25/92 Board Workshop, which was a continuation of the 4/22/92 Board meeting, and the 5/27/92 Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from persons in attend- ance not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION; lng: 1. Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to approve the follow- LAKE USE & RECREATION COMMITTEE VOTE: Ae Special Events 1. Deposit Refunds of $100 each: a. AJA Fishing Tournament, 5/26/92 b. Minnetonka Bass Club, Minnetonka Bass Classic, 6/6/92 c. MN Bass Federation, Telemetry Tournament,5/16/92 Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS The Lake Use and Recreation Committee report was delayed until later in the meeting. 1. ENVIRONMENT, Chair Hurr A. Hurt moved, Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the Environment Committee meeting of 6/9/92, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 Markus arrived B. Committee Report 1) Lakewatch - Hurr reported the committee recommend- ed a joint effort with LMLOA at $1,000 each for collecting water quality data. The LMCD funds could come from the Lake Access study or from Save the Lake. Don Germanson said the LMLOA wants to be part of the pro- gram, but feels there is another program which can do the same thing at little or no cost through the Pollution Control Agency. The state lakeshore owners association is-negotiating with the PCA to take over the program. He does not have the approval of the LMLOA for the expenditure of $1,000. Hurt responded that the PCA may not do anything for another year and the program should not be delayed. Grathwol suggesting proceeding with the program, contingent upon the LMLOA joining in with the funding. Hurt added there may be other sources of funds. NOTION: Grathwol moved, Owen seconded, to allocate $1,000 from the Lake Access budget funds to do the water quality test this year in conjunction with the Fresh Water Foundation and with the LMLOA providing matching funding if it wishes to join. If the LMLOA does not join, the LMCD will proceed with other funding sources. VOTE: Motion carried, Hurr abstaining because she is on the Freshwater Foundation board. C. EWM Task Force Report, Chair Penn Penn submitted the EWM Task Force minutes of the June 19, 1992 meeting, commenting as follows: Diamond Reef Control Proposal Penn reported the Minnetonka Yacht Club and the Wayzata Yacht Club agreed that it would not make sense to use 2.4-D treatment on Diamond Reef in the open lake. They agreed a test of 5 - 10 acre block of that area would be sufficient to see the impact of the herbicide. The executive director will amend the permit previously submitted to the DNR for a smaller area in Diamond Reef. The LMCD will also harvest Diamond Reef. Aqua Plant Survey Penn said the initial samples of aquatic plants in St. Alban's Bay have given Wendy Crowell, Consultant, a good base for the aquatic inventory needed in advance of a treatment. Communications Penn called attention to the portion of the 6/19/92 minutes referring to the need for improved communication from the DNR. The executive director will draft a letter outlining the areas in which DNR activities on Lake Minnetonka are taking place without coordination with the LMCD and other responsible governing agen- cies such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Penn said a member of the Fisheries Division of the DNR will be added to the subcommittee studying the use of Sonar. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 1) Harvesting Operations Progress Penn reported the newly hired crew is learning the proce- dures. They have had a number of equipment problems. As a result they have not completed the harvesting scheduled. They are working in Carman's Bay through 6/26. Robert Pierce commented that the equipment breakdowns may be a result of the equipment being three years old. Germanson asked if there are many calls about EWM infesta- tions. The executive director said there have only been a few (six or so). Costagna offered the use of the LMLOA voice mail facilities for the public to call to find out where the harvest- ing will be done each week. The LMCD staff will check to see if there is a potential for such use. 2) Scientific Subcommittee Penn called the Board's attention to the Scientific Subcommittee report in the minutes. 3) Styrofoam Cochran called attention to the proposed Orono ordinance regarding control of styrofoam used in dock construction. Gabri- el Jabbour, Orono Councilmember, said the City intends to have the Ordinance on its books within 60 days. Cochran said the ordinance should be distributed to the other Lake cities. 4) Other Hurr said the Environment Committee will discuss the impact of the MnDOT upgrading of S.Hwy. 12 on the Lake because of the highway's proximity to many of the wetlands in the Lake's water- shed. 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION COMMITTEE, Reese for Chair Foster A. Approval of Minutes. Reese moved, Penn seconded, to approve the minutes of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting of 6/15/92 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Events 1) Westonka MDA Bass Tournament, Sunday 8/16/92 MOTION: Reese moved, Penn seconded, to approve with stipulations the special event application of the Westonka MDA Bass Tournament to be held on Sunday, 8/16/92, with ease off at the Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay. DISCUSSION: Costagna read excerpts from a State statute regard- ing requirements for the use of "reasonable and workable inspec- tion requirement for boats and equipment participating in organized events on the waters of the state" He stated LMLOA members who were present at the Lake Use and Recreation Committee meeting said the LMCD is waiving the inspection requirement when issuing special event licenses. It is Costagna's opinion that the event sponsors should have a plan for inspecting the boats prior to the event. He further believes LMCD is violating the law by not requiring boat inspections. 7.5" LNCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24~ 1992 LeFevere said he could not comment on the law without having an opportunity to review the entire statute. The executive director said it is the judgment of the com- mittee that the LMCD permit stipulations meet the '*reasonable and workable" requirements. Hurt asked who is going to enforce this law and do the inspections. The executive director noted fishing events require a DNR permit, adding the DNR sponsored a fishing event in May without requiring inspections. Reese asked staff to review the statute to verify LMCD compliance before making changes in the stipulations. He would not want to have the event permit recommended for approval by the committee affected by the discussion. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Babcock moved, Markus seconded, to refer review of compliance with the new State Law regarding inspections to the Lake Use and Recreation Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2) Aqua Celebrity Rally Parade, Saturday, 7/18/92 Reese explained the event is being organized by a sub- committee of the Minneapolis Aquatennial. The parade will be open to the public, with the plan to involve a large number of boats. Tickets will be sold to participate in the parade. The proceeds are to be contributed to the Save the Lake Fund. One feature of the parade will be the demonstration of two high performance boats?__The_cpmmittee_agreed to waive the decibel limitation for short period demonstrations. John Wilke and Bob Brandt were present to speak on behalf of the application. Hurt asked if the Aquatennial would be allocating any funds to this event. Brandt responded that this is not an Aquatennial event, it is a Milfoil fund raiser, but there will be a contribu- tion to the Aquatennial in consideration of its assistance in monitoring the parade. Brandt distributed a map of the parade route with final approval to be received from the Water Patrol. Wilke said the applicants see this as an opportunity to promote the rules and philosophy of the LMCD. Cochran said he objects to the LMCD allowing the event to bring in fast and noisy boats. He said it is a precedent which could encourage others to do the same. Markus. said the two demonstration boats being brought in could not normally be used on Lake Minnetonka. The purpose is to show them off for the Aquatennial. Penn asked if the two high speed boats could be run at a legal decibel rating. He wondered if there could be a stipula- tion as to the length of time the decibel rating could be exceed- ed for short bursts. Brandt said the two boats will not be in the parade, they will be used for short demonstrations only. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 They could not idle for the duration of the parade. They will also be displayed on land. Hurr indicated she is not bothered by the big boats. She does not believe an exhibition would encour- age lake users to feel it would give them license to speed. LeFevere commented on the Committee recommendation to waive the decibel rating for the two high powered boats. He said there are state laws governing decibel levels on boats, boats must have mufflers, and cut outs are not allowed. The LMCD cannot waive the State laws. There was discussion of what portion of 'the proceeds from the sponsorship fees and parade ticket fees would be contributed to the Save the Lake Fund for EWM control. The committee recom- mendation stipulated 75% of the proceeds would be contributed. As Brandt mentioned earlier, a portion of the fees have been committed to the Aquatennial for its assistance. MOTION: Hurr moved, Babcock seconded, to amend Stipulation #$ in the committee recommendation to read: Sixty per cent of the profits from fees/sponsorships raised will be donated to the Save the Lake Fund as a beneficiary listed in participant registration materials, to include EWM and Zebra Mussel educational material from copy provided by the LMCD and DNR. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Hurr moved, Babcock seconded, to approve a Special Event license for an Aqua Celebrity Rally Parade on Saturday, 7/18/92, with the addition of the following stipulations to the usual Special Event stipulations: 1) The 40 mph speed limit is to be observed; 2) The route is to be worked out with the Sheriff's Water Patrol; 3) The parade is to start at 9 a.m. and end at 1 p.m.; 4) Sixty per cent of the profits from fees/sponsorships raised will be donated to the Save the Lake Fund within 60 days following the event, with the Save the Lake Fund as a beneficiary listed in participant registration materials, to include EWM and Zebra Mussel educational material from copy provided by the LMCD and DNR; 5) The applicant is to be aware the Hennepin County Sher- iff's Water Patrol has final authority on when the parade is over, if crowdihg requires an earlier dismissal, and on water traffic control;. 6) A certif:icate of insurance with adequate dollar coverage naming the LMCD as additional insured is to be provided at least two weeks before the event. VOTE: Motion carried, Cochran voting nay. C. New on-sale wine and on-sale beer license MOTION: Reese moved, Orathwol seconded, to accept the Public Hearing report dated 5/27/92 and to approve On-sale wine and on- sale beer licenses for the Excelsior Park charter boat. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 D. Boat & Water Safety Education Subcommittee The Board received a recommendation of the Boat and Water Safety Education subcommittee to petition the courts to include a boater education program in lieu of part of the fine for serious and repeat offenders, including a specific education provision for persons convicted of Boating While Intoxicated, per the Management Plan objective. The intent would be to adopt the Minnetonka Power Squadron boater education program for serious and repeat offenders with the addition of a class sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driv- ing (MADD). Steve Tallen, LMCD Prosecuting Attorney, would recommend the course or courses based on the seriousness of the offense. MOTION: Reese moved, Penn seconded, to direct the Prosecuting Attorney to assist the executive director in development and implementation of a plan to incorporate the existing Minnetonka Power Squadron boater education program, with a supplement for Boating While Intoxicated offenders using an existing or special- ly developed MADD program, in lieu of a portion of the fine and/or incarceration for serious and repeat boating violation offenders. DISCUSSION: Babcock said it is important to make the public aware of the laws. It is important to get the attention of the people who are not reading the rules. Reese said there was discussion of developing a specific education program for Lake Minnetonka. Babcock said that could be an additional use of Save the Lake funds. Responding to a question about the cost of the program, Chandier sa/d-the-o£fender would have to pay any fees required by the organization presenting the class. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Water Patrol Report 1) Activities report The written report submitted to the committee was accepted with the following additions from Chandler: * There have been 21 BWI citations. Two were issued by the '-Water-Patrol and one by the City of Orono. * The boat stolen from Tonka Bay has been recovered. * A detective is working on thefts on the Lake. A second boat was stolen, this one from Spring Park. * Over the 6/20-21/92 weekend .the charter boat Godfather II sank when it hit the sea wall at Emerald Channel. There were 31 people on board and they were rescued without injury. * The Water Patrol distributes the LbtCD summer rules to the public along with their own brochures. Markus mentioned a reference he saw to a "high producing deputy". This raised a question in his mind as to whether the Water Patrol has a reference point in determining whether an offender should be cited. Chandler responded'that boating while drinking is as much of a danger to the public as driving and LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 drinking. Half of fatalities are alcohol related. As often as they can, they use the stop as a means of educating the boater. There are some boaters who are consistent violators and they have to be made aware of the law. 2) Board Participation in the Water Patrol Ride Along Reese encouraged the Board members to participate in the Water Patrol evening/weekend enforcement patrols by riding along with the deputies. Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings are suggested times. Arrangements can be made by calling Sgt. Chandler at 471-8528. 3. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Babcock Babcock report- ed there was no Committee meeting in June because of the Lake Inspection Tour on 6/13. A. Lake Inspection Tour Babcock reported half of the Board members took the Lake inspection tour along with most of the staff. Babcock expressed thanks to the Minnetonka Boat Works for providing the boat for the tour. 4. LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE, Chair Orathwol Grathwol submitted minutes and notes from the following June meetings: 1) 6/4/92..- A meeting with Board members to update them on what has taken place since early November. 2) 6/10/92 - Data Gathering Subcommittee of the Lake Access Task Force. 3) 6/18/92 - Lake Access Standards Subcommittee of the Lake Access Task Force. Grathwol suggested the Board review the minutes at their leisure. DISCUSSION: Cochran noted the Standards Subcommittee used the services of Don Buckhout as a facilitator. Buckhout is an Alternate Dispute Resolutions Coordinator of the DNR. Buckhout's service has the approval of the DNR. The fee would be $25 an hour for advance preparation, meeting time and post meeting responsibili- ties. The Subcommittee will recommend his use to the Task Force. Gabriel Jabbour, Orono Councilmember, noted the DNR does not have an existing acceptable car/trailer parking criteria. The Data Gathering Subcommittee is using Lake Minnetonka as a ground to define reliable spaces. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Strommen for Carlson A. May Statement of Cash Transactions Hurr moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the May Statement of Cash Transactions as submitted and order it filed. Motion carried unanimously. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 24, 1992 B. Audit of vouchers for Payment Reese moved, Penn seconded, to approve payment of bills in the amount of $23,007.99, Checks Nos. 8562 through 8614. Motion carried unanimously. C. 1993 LMCD Budget The executive director reported the 1993 budget has been submitted to all of the cities. The executive director presented the budget to the Shorewood Council. The Council was pleased that. the Board is lowering the city levy. The council is satisfied with the milfoil program. The executive director has heard that the Mound Council is concerned about the rising fees for multiple docks. Some members of the Mound Council would like relief for non-profit organiza- tions for special event permits. The executive director has discussed this with the Mound administrator, and he was asked to attend their August City Council workshop. Orono has no objection to the budget. There were some comments about marina and multiple dock license fees. Penn reported Tonka Bay is supportive of the budget and reduction of the city levy. The Council had questions about the part time technician but was satisfied with Penn's explanation. Babcock said the Spring Park Council had similar questions about additional staffing. Markus reported the Wayzata Council is frustrated because the DNR is not contributing to the milfoil program. The Council wonders why none of the DNR boater registration fund is contrib- uted to the LMCD milfoil program, from the 8000 boats stored on the Lake. Markus asked about the original line item for a fish- ing study. It was explained that specific line was removed from the budget and the amount budgeted was added to the Management Plan Implementation Studies budget item. In that way the study cost will have to be approved by the Board. As a line item it would be a pre-approved expenditure. Babcock expressed his opinion that the LMCD should receive some of the $2 per boat surcharge. The executive director then presented an adjustment to the Office and Administrative Section, increasing the allocation for line 10, telephone, from $1,600 to $2,300 to accommodate a third telephone line intended to be included, but overlooked in the budget draft. Adjustments were therefore made within the Office and Administrative section, decreasing line 9, Office, General Supplies, from $4,000 to $3,500, and line 15, Insurance, from $6,000 to $5,800. With those adjustments the executive director recommended adoption. MOTION: Hurt moved, Reese seconded, to approve the 1993 budget as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Hurt expressed the appreciation of the Orono Council for the budget prepared by Carlson and staff. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen June 24, 1992 1) Strommen called the Board's attention to a new Greenwood City Ordinance regarding storage of commercial watercraft at residential properties. A copy will be sent to other Lake ci- ties. 2) The Non-Restricted Watercraft and Off-Lake Storage Subcommittee of the Water Structures Committee will meet on June 30, 1992 at 8:30 a.m. A Subcommittee of the Water Structures Committee to discuss broadening sales of items at gas docks will meet on July 7, 1992 at 8:30 a.m. 3) Strommen reported he met with members of the Water Patrol, Hennepin Parks law enforcement personnel and representa- tives of the snowmobile community to discuss the reduction in the size of the license numbers on the snowmobiles. It was deter- mined the main reason for the smaller size is cosmetic. The LMCD, Water Patrol, Hennepin Parks and State Sheriff's Associa- tion objection to the DNR Order was not anticipated by the DNR. There will be a follow up meeting to consider a compromise. 4) Strommen will meet with the Superintendent of Hennepin Parks on 6/25/92 to see what Park arrangements are under consid- eration for multiple docks at the new Regional Park. 5) Strommen plans to use personal time to attend the Dis- trict Power Squadron meeting on July 18, 19 and 20 at Duluth. 6) Strommen reported the Public Official Lake Tour is scheduled for August 1st, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Invitations will be sent next week. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR Cochran called attention to the on going struggle the LMCD has in dealing with people changing on city councils as well as other regional and state organizations with whom the LMCD inter- acts. Residents also come and go, just as reporters from the press come and go. Cochran continued that the Board has the ongoing responsibility of educating its constituency about the objectives and activities of the LMCD. It is an image building process. The Board struggled with many of these constituencies while preparing the Management Plan. The Board is now facing change during the development of the plan. The new people do not know the background of the LMCD. The Board also learned while re- visiting its relationships with the cities and other agencies. The Board members need to speak constructively about the LMCD. Cochran urged Board members be sure of their facts when talking to friends, councils, press and the public. He further suggested Board members call the office and verify their information if needed. Cochran encouraged tile Board to let it be known that the LblCD is trying to do a job for everybody who lives on or uses the lake. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary lo Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound 2020 COMMERCE BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 July 16, 1992 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager Mound, MN ~.L"D JUL Z ~ '~992 Dear Ed: Please accept this letter as my resignation as chairperson of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment authority as of August 12, 1992. Since the beginning of by commission (Nov 1973) there have been four commissioned Executive Directors. The business procedures were traditionally passed on from one director to the next. Unfortunately these procedures were recently proven to be an ineffective way to manage this commission. However, at this time I can report that there have been numerous operational changes that should safeguard the operation of the Mound HRA in the future. Ail in all Ed, I feel that it has been an honor to serve on the Mound Planning Commission, City Council and the Mound HRA. There seems to be a time in a person's life that you feel enough is enough and I feel that time has now arrived. Sincerely, Eldo Schmidt McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. ~5050 23rd Avenue North PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 (612) 476-6010 FAX (612) 476-8532 JUL 9 0 1992 LETTER [] Please reply 1~1o reply necessary t MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK ~ OPEN SPACE COI~ISSION JULY 9v :1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, 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. Joy Eischeid was absent and excused. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Asleson, to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of June ~, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. ~DOCK LICENSE FEES - PUBLIC MEWING. Chair Skoglund opened the public hearing. Steve Kirshbaum questioned what the dock fees pay for. The Parks Director commented that the fees pay solely for the dock program, he reviewed the dock fund budget and the fund balances. Should the Dock Fund pay for riprapping and other general maintenance of the public lands? Fackler explained that there are many types of public lands, not all are "commons.,, The dock fund does not pay for the maintenance of all public lands, but only those lands which are adjacent to dock sites. Kirshbaum suggested that the projected cost of dredges and riprapping be divided between the number of dock sites and that determine the dock license fees. Fackler commented that the 1993 projected costs for the Dock Fund have not yet been established, staff is currently looking into those figures and they will not be approved by the City Council until December. Ahrens questioned if the public lands are for only the dock holders, or for everyone? Casey suggested that if the commons and public lands are for everyone, they should be marked with signs? Ron Motyka of 1545 Bluebird Lane questioned if private dock holders have to pay an LMCD fee. Chair Skoglund informed Mr. Motyka that Mound's docks are classified by the LMCD as commercial docks and therefore they require the City pay a fee, and private dock holders do not pay a fee. Mr. Motyka inquired why a dock license fee is determined by the shape of a dock, and commented that if a dock site includes 25 feet of shoreline, why is the dock shape regulated? Staff emphasized that if the shape of the dock is not regulated, congestion problems will occur. Staff explained that in the past dock fees were determine4 by the square footage of the docks, and since the "L", Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 "T", and "U" docks were larger, when a new fee structure was designed, it was determined that the fee should be higher for these types of docks. Mr. Motyka stated that he feels the LMCD fee is unfair, he does not feel Mound's LMCD Representative is properly representing Mound's Commons. Casey commented that he is also concerned about the LMCD charges and would entertain that the Park Commission express this concern to the City Council. Bob Lien of 1583 Bluebird Lane believes the abutting property owners should get a cut in the dock license fees in lieu of maintenance such as mowing, picking up garbage, picking up sticks, etc. The Park Director stated that the sod was not placed on the Commons by the City, and when an abutting owner improves the public lands, they must maintain the improvement. Mark Hanus presented a proposal to the Park Commission to adopt a single fee for every dock user regardless of the dock configura- tion. Hanus figured the following: 327 straight docks @ 29 "L" docks @ 8 "U" docks @ 364 total docks $150.00 = $49,050.00 $2O0.O0 = $ 5,800.00 $235.00 = $ 1,880.00 $56,730.00 total revenue $56,730 / 364 = $155.85 cost per dock (any configuration) Hanus reviewed the benefits of this program: Less costly program to administer. More freedom for the.user who is paying for the program. No loss of quality, appearance, or the types of acceptable configurations mainly because they would still be inspected and have to meet the same criteria and standards as they do now. Unlike what some people think, the cost to the user would only go up $5.85 per year for a straight dock. No loss of revenue. The City maintains the same revenue generated as it does now. A more consistent review base. The fees would be based on something tangible such as the cost of licensing instead of an intangible base that no one can justify. Casey confirmed with Mr. Hanus that the proposal does not eliminate the authority for staff to regulate the size and shapes of docks installed. Hanus agreed that staff should still have the discretion to control the size and shape of a dock in order to 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 reduce congestion. Fackler emphasized the problems that this type of program would create, specifically congestion. All dock sites are large enough to accommodate any size or shape of dock, and staff will not be able to justify that the dock they propose will not fit in their space. Ahrens commented that in non-traversable areas this will not be a problem. Hanus suggested that maybe the docks are already too close together. Denny Flack of 1609 Bluebird Lane commented that it already states on the dock application that some areas are restricted specifically to straight docks. He agreed that having the same fee could create inappropriate dock configurations. Mr. Flack questioned if dock license holders are renting the land? Fackler commented that the dock holder is required to maintain the immediate area of their dock site. -Mr. Flack continued to signify the amount of money he has personally spent on maintaining the commons area abutting his property. He suggested that the dock license fee for abutting owners be waived in lieu of maintenance of the commons. Again, the Parks Director explained that improvements, such as sod, when installed by the abutting owner, it is their responsibility to maintain. He also questioned why seniors should receive a break in the fee. Frank Ahrens of 4673 Island View Drive commented that he is not in favor of the dock fees paying for riprap and tree removal on the commons. He suggested that the dock fees could be reduced if the dock fund did not support these costs. Ahrens is not in favor of marking dedicated commons with signs since these dedicated areas are not for all the public to use. Mr. Ahrens informed the Commission that he is preparing a proposal for the City of Mound to implement a multiple dock system like other communities on Lake Minnetonka have. Me expounded that nonabutting docks sites could be relocated to a multiple dock located at an area such as Centerview Beach. The initial cost of the multiple dock would be approximately $13,500. Casey questioned if the City can legally deny a nonabutting dock holder a dock site in a dedicated area. Casey requested that Frank Ahrens also include in his proposal what type of signs would be acceptable for the dedicated commons areas. Mueller suggested that Frank Ahrens also explore what a fair dock fee would be for a multiple dock versus a regular dock. Skoglund commented that parking for a multiple dock also needs to be considered. Fackler suggested that Mr. Ahrens also investigate LMCD requirements. 3 Park and Open Space Co~miss£on Minutes July 9, 1992 Carole Munson informed the Commission that she does not believe Mound's docks currently meet DNR standards for spacing, and reducing the number of docks along a shoreline and providing for a multiple dock may be preferred by the DNR. Rod Plaza expressed a few concerns including LMCD fees and abutting owners maintaining the commons. He informed the Commission that a complaint was made at the May 30th public meeting that there are 50 gallon drums with cement in them and other debris on the commons abutting his property which City Staff has not addressed to-date. Mr. Plaza is in favor of Frank Ahrens proposal for multiple docks, however he is opposed to marking the commons. Carole Munson questioned the need for markers on the commons and does not feel the dock holders should pay for markers which would be installed for the general public. Munson is also in favor of Frank Ahrens proposal for a multiple dock system because it would help alleviate the crowded condition of the existing docks and the DNR requires spacing of 30 feet between docks. Ben Gaudette of 1605 Bluebird Lane commented that if the citizens are not requesting markers on the commons, then why put them in? Mr. Flack suggested that private property owners can mark their own property if they wish. Greg Knutson is opposed to marking commons and accesses as he feels it would encourage crime. Jan Trapp of 5441 Breezy Road is a nonabutting dock license holder and requested that the fees not be raised. She also agreed that signs or markers are not needed. There being no further comments from citizens present, Chair Skoglund closed the public hearing. REVIE~LETTEROF CONCERN RELATING TO THE DETERIOI~TION OF STI~TFORn CONlqONS SHORELINE BY STEVE KIRSHBAUN. The Dock Inspector informed Mr. Kirshbaum that he has sent notices to the dock site holders in the subject area requiring they clean their sites and remove any debris. Jim Fackler addressed the issue of riprapping and agreed that this shoreline is eroding and riprap is needed. Due to the conditions of this area, including a very mucky lake bottom, an estimated cost to riprap this area would be $45,000, plus engineering costs. It was noted that this project, along with proposed 1993 improvements, would wipe-out the dock fund balance. Fackler commented that areas to riprap were previously prioritized, and this area was a lower 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 priority than others such as Devon Commons and Woodland Point. The Commission agreed that this area needs to be riprapped, however, they questioned where the funds should come from for the riprapping. Ahrens commented that riprapping should not be totally paid for by the dock fund, and she explained that the City has a contingency fund available and maybe the council would agreed to use some of these funds for riprapping. The City Manager stated that riprapping or dredging is not an appropriate expenditure for the contingency fund, and he suggested that it be proposed with the 1993 budget. Casey noted that this area is quickly eroding and it should be riprapped this year, if possible, but the question is where to get the funds. Asleson commented that he would like to look at the priority llst for areas to be riprapped and dredged. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Casey to table discussion on the request to riprap Stratford Commons to allow staff time to bring information back to the Park Commission including a priority list for areas to be riprapped and dredqe. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC LANDS NAINTENANCE PER~__!T APPLICATION: REQUEST TO REPLACE STAIRWAY BY BILL SCHUMER~ 2885 CAMBRIDGE LANE. The Parks Director reviewed the applicant's request to replace a stairway on Brighton Commons. Staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: The new stairway shall be in compliance with the Building Code and inspected and approved by the Building Official. Proper erosion control measures shall be taken to maintain and establish vegetation on the site as approved by the Parks Director Permit expires five (5) years from the date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. NOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to recommended approval of the Maintenance Permit as requested and as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. 5 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION= REQUEST FOR STAIRWAY/WALKWAY BY CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE· Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a construction on public lands permit. On June 23, 1992 the City Council ordered removal of the existing de~k. The applicant stated her intentions at the June~rd meeting to leave a 4 foot walkway between the existing two stairways and add a new step off the walkway to the old patio area and fill this area with crushed gravel or sand. Staff recommended approval of the applicant's request as amended by staff as follows: Allow the applicant to maintain a maximum 4 foot wide portion of the existing deck to connect the existing stairways. Construct a new stairway to the old patio area between the existing play house and boat house (this area is under the existing deck). Fill and re-grade the area between the existing play house and boat house with black dirt and grass seed or sod, no crushed gravel or sand due to erosion problems. Install a new guardrail along the lower old masonry retaining wall once the illegal deck as been removed. The guardrail shall be a minimum of 36 inches in height with intermediate rails spaced less than 6 inches apart. Se Allow such repairs as may be deemed necessary by staff to the existing masonry retaining Wall closest to the lakeshore and that the decorative lattice work and plantings be allowed to remain. That a handrail of an approved type as noted on handrail handout be installed on each of the stairways above and below the connecting walkway the full length of each stairway and that the existing stairs may remain as constructed. That all such improvements shall be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building Official and Parks Director and the handrail and guardrail modifications shall be in conformance with the Building Code. Permit expires five (5) years from date of City Council approval upon which time renewal is required. The Building Official commented that an actual plan was not Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 received until 3:07 p.m. on July 8 from the applicant and it was handed out to the Commissioners by the Secretary. Casey questioned if the applicant could install bushes instead of the proposed guardrail. The Building Official stated that the guardrail is required by code. Casey suggested that this permit have the same expiration date as the current maintenance permit on this property so when they expire the proposal can be reviewed as a whole. Ms. Munson addressed the Commission and stated that the "Use Plan" designates the commons area abutting her property as a fishing area, and uses which would discourage this area to be used for fishing should not be allowed. In her opinion, the improvements on the commons do not discourage the use of the area for fishing. Munson proposed that the portion of the deck which currently overhangs from the retaining wall by approximately I foot be allowed to remain so she will not have to alter the guardrail. Munson noted that the retaining wall has a protrusion, or a jog which is approximately 3' wide, and if she is required to bring the guardrail back to the retaining wall, the guardrail will have to follow the jog which would look silly, or if the guardrail is straight, the jogged portion of the retaining wall would be visible to those standing on the grade above which does not make any sense when she could just leave the existing guardrail. What difference will 1 foot make? It will save her a lot of time and money. The Parks Director emphasized that the City Council has ordered the entire deck be removed. Munson referred to item ~3 of staff's recommendation and stated that it would be very difficult to carry a lawn mower down to mow the patio portion, and it is such a small area it does not make any sense. Munson stated that she won't sod the area because she is not going to mow it. She would prefer to have sand or gravel, and she does not believe erosion will be a problem. Casey commented that an ideal proposal would be to remove the retaining wall and slope the grade. HOTION made by Casey, seconded by Hueller to recommend that the requested Construction on Public Lands Permit expiration date be consistent vith the existinN Haintenance Permit on file for this property. Notion carried $ to 2. Those in flavor vere: &sleson, Casey, Hueller and SkoNlund. Byrnes and Anderson opposed. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes July 9, 1992 MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval as recommended by staff with the exception of items #3 and #4, and that the applicant be allowed to leave the existingguardrail as proposed. Motion carried 4 to 2. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Anderson, Mueller and Skoglund. Casey and Asleson were opposed. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. REVIEW ISSUE OF UNPAID LATE DOCK LICENSE FEE BY CAROLE MUNSON, 4729 .ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey reviewed the history of the unpaid dock fees. Ms. Munson reviewed her version and reasons for not paying. It was noted that since Ms. Munson paid her fee on June 1st, a late fee of $10 for June is due and now a late fee for July is due, resulting in a total due of $40.00. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Anderson to recommend Ms. Munson pay a $20 late fee and approve her dock license for 1992. Motion carried $ to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Anderson, Skoglund, Casey and Asleson. Mueller opposed. This issue will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS. It was determined that information that is on-file relating Nature Conservation Areas, including minutes and reports, are to be forwarded to the City Planner for his review, then a meeting is to be scheduled. TAX FORFEITED LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR SALE: 1) 13- 117-24 12 0067 & 0069~ ~ND 2) 19-117-23 32 0128. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Mueller to recommend that the tax forfeited parcels not be released until the Park Commission has completed the Nature Conservation Areas Study. Motion carried unanimously. SWIMMING RAFTS MOORED OFF PUBLIC SHORELINE. The City Attorney confirmed that the City does not have jurisdiction in this. any 8 Park and Open Space Comm£ssion Minutes MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Casey to Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at Motion carried unanimously. JulF 9, 1992 adjourn the 12:08 p.m. 9 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13v L992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill ross, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Jerry Clapsaddle was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Ken Larson, Bonnie Cornell, David Bartels, Joanne Kaehnen, Leonard Koehnen, Dan Balloy, Tom Bollock, Keith Mitchell, Kim & Michele Elifrits, Wende Brady, Tammy & Dave Bye, and Scott & Rey Lindquist. MINUTES The June 22, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael, to approve the June 22, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4m REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087. FARIANCE - deck. The applicant was not present. Staff reviewed the background of the case. The City Council referred this case back to the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 23, 1992 due to the actual setbacks revealed by a new survey not being consistent' with the original review by the Planning Commission. Two options for construction of a deck were submitted. The applicant prefers Option A, and it appears to be the most desirable for the site rather than Option B. Due to practical difficulty apparent in this case, the additional 5 feet of encroachment appears reasonable to staff. Staff recommended approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot, that the addition of the deck is a reasonable use of the property, and that the granting of the variance would be Consistent with Zoning Code Section 23.506.1. Mueller questioned the hardship for allowing a larger deck. The Building Official commented that the existing deck is not a functional deck. Hanus feels the request is reasonable and a functional deck should be allowed for tables and chairs. Planning Commission M~nutes July 13, 1992 Mueller questioned if a variance is also required for the 9.05' setback to the south side property line. Koegler commented that he believes this property is a lot of record which allows for an 8' side yard setback for lots 80 - 100 feet wide, therefore the side yard setback is .conforming at 9.05'. .Mueller commented that the structures on this lot are already pushlngthe limits on hardcover. Weiland questioned if an on-grade deck would be conforming. The Building Official did inform the Applicant,s contractor that an on- grade deck could be constructed without a variance, but in light of the nonconforming status of the property, any proposed on-grade deck would be reviewed with the City Planner. Hanus questioned if an on-grade deck would block windows, and the Building Official confirmed that it would. The Building Official commented that the applicant is not in favor of this option. HOTION made by Weiland, seoonded by Hueller to recommend denial of the variance to expand the deck as requested. Fact of finding: an on-grade deck could be constructed. Motion to deny failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Jansen and Michael. Those opposed were: Johnson, Hanus, Hayer and Voss. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 14, 1992. ~ ~FRITS 2021 ARBOR LANE, LOT ~. VARIANCE - fence. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request to install a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence along the side lot line. Fences are limited to 4 feet in height within the front yard setback, and it is proposed to have approximately 10 feet of the fence within the front yard setback area. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the fence is to screen the adjacent garage, concrete walkway and dog kennel. Due to the intensive development of the area, such a request seems reasonable and could be considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2 foot fence height variance to permit installation of a 6 foot high fence. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, it is further suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with Section 23 506 ! of the Mound Zoning Code. ' · Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1992 Weiland questioned the conformance of the existing fence which is constructed upon the new deck. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend denial of the fence height variance, and direct staff to investigate the conformity of the existing fencing. Mueller questioned what harm 2 more feet of fencing would cause? Michael commented that practical difficulty or hardship is not prevalent. The applicant commented that they wanted the fence to block storage of materials on the adjacent property, however, that owner has now moved. MOTION to deny carried 8 to 1. Meyer, Michael, Hanus, Johnson, Jensen. Mueller opposed. Those in favor were: ross, Weiland, and This request will be heard by the City Council on July 28, 1992. CASE ~92-033: WENDE BRADY, 2174 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 11 & 28, BLOCK 7, ~BRAHAM LINCOLN, PID ~13-117-24 31 0055. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the applicant's request to construct a single story addition (32' x 20') with a small entry deck. The existing home has a 4.6 foot side yard setback which is 1.4 feet under the required 6 foot setback. The proposed addition will continue the alignment of the nonconforming side wall resulting in an additional ecroachment of approximately .3 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to construct the proposed addition. The addition is consistent with the practical difficulty provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. The approval should be conditioned upon the relocation of the fence onto the subject property prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the location of the existing home precludes alternate locations for the proposed improvement resulting in a practical difficulty situation for the property owner. 3 Planning Commission N£nutes July 13, 1992 HOTION made by Nichael, seconded by Hanus, to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Hotion carried unanimously. This case viii be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. 23 0041. VARIANCE - sin le famil dwellin . City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a lot area variance in order to construct a new home. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested lot area variance. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds the requested lot area variance consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The request is consistent with actions taken by the City of Mound in 1985 to approve the creation of the subject lot. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. C~SE 1~92-035.'_ ~N___21_51 CEDAR LANE LOT 26 & 1/2 Of AB~ LINCOLN PID 13-117-24-32 0021.. VARIANCE - City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance in order to construct a new conforming addition on the west side of the home. The existing home conforms to ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yard setbacks of 3.3 feet and 8.8 feet resulting in variances of 2.7 feet and 1.2 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of recognition of the requested side yard variances in order to construct a conforming addition. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission include the following Finding of Fact in an approval motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested side yard setback variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the nonconforming setbacks result from conditions over which the applicant has no control. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1992 MOTION made by #eiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. CASE ~92-036: WILLIAM HIBB8, 5860 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOT 4 & 1/2 OF LOT 5m BLOCK It HIGHLANDSm PID ~23-117-24 42 0014. VARIANCE - repair foundation. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow improvements to an existing principal structure. The dwelling is 17' from the front property line resulting in a 13' variance, and there is a detached garage 2 feet from the side property line which received a variance in 1981. The front portion of the structure that encroaches into the required setback area has a number of problems. According to the Building official's inspection, the rafters are sagging and appear to be undersized, the foundation has failed on the west side, other sides of the foundation have been covered by a wooden material precluding further inspection, siding is not properly installed, and portions of the interior ceiling have collapsed apparently due to leaks in the roof. Based on the Building Official's inspection, it appears that the portion of the existing structure that encroaches into the required setback has serious structural problems. The magnitude of the necessary repairs indicates that it may be more appropriate to remove the nonconforming portion of the structure and add additional space to the home in a conforming location. Staff recommended denial of the requested variance to rebuild or substantially repair the existing home. The applicant should prepare a comprehensive plan for improving the existing home that includes removal of the front portion of the home, remodeling the existing conforming portions of the structure as necessary, and adding additional space to the home in a conforming location on the lot. Upon preparation of such a plan, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming garage. It was questioned if the structure would meeting the 840 square foot minimum required floor area for a dwelling if the front portion of the home was removed, and it was assumed it would not. Meyer commented that the time to get this structure into conformance is now. The applicant informed the Commission that there is another poured foundation inside the existing foundation, 5 Plannin9 Commission Minutes ~uly 13, 1992 so the structure is not as bad as it may seem. Jon informed the applicant that if the variance is approved, all decayed portions of the foundation would have to be repaired. The applicant commented that he will fix whatever is needed. The applicant's estimated cost to improve the structure is $6,000. Mueller questioned if the basement ceiling height would be required to be raised. The Building Official replied that it would not have to be raised, but if it does not meeting the minimum height requirement it cannot be considered habitable space and it will reduce the square footage of the dwelling. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend denial of the variance request due to the substandard condition of the dwelling as determined by staff. Notion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. EASE #9Z-037: MOUND COLLISION & PAINT, SCOTT LINDQUIST, Z351 CONNERCE BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6,7,8, NCNAUGHTS ADDITION, PID #13 ~17-24 33 0050. VARIANCE - free standinq siqn. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to install a nonconforming free standing sign. The proposed sign has a total area of 144 square feet with a height of 25 feet. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows freestanding signs with a maximum area of 48 square feet and a 25 foot maximum height. In addition, the proposed sign does not meet the required 10 foot setback from all rights-of-way. Staff recommended denial of the proposed variance. The proposed sign variance is inconsistent with the Mound Sign Ordinance and it is inconsistent with Mound's current efforts to revitalize the downtown area through the Mound Visions project. Reynold Lindquist, owner of the property, clarified for the Commission that the sign consists of two parts, the first being 5' x 18' (90 square feet) denoting "Mound Collision,. and the second being 3' x 18' (54 square feet) containing an area to allow for changeable letters. Mr. Lindquist stressed the need for the changeable sign which would eliminate the clutter of temporary/ seasonal signs in the area. He also emphasized the need to be able to expose the businesses in his building. The Commission commented on the enormous size of the sign and the impact it would have on downtown. 6 P~&nn£n9 CommLss~on M£nu~es ~ul~ 13~ 1992 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to table the sign variance request to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss alternative solutions. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-038: DANIEL T. BALLOY, 1701 SHOREWOOD LANEt LOT It BLOCK 5, BHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0021. VARIANCE - singl~ family dwelling. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a new home to replace an existing home that was destroyed by fire. As proposed, the new structure will meet all setbacks except the front yard off of Three Points Blvd. which will require a 21' setback variance to the attached garage. The lot has a total area of 9,740 square feet which results in an additional variance request of 260 square feet. Upon completion, the amount of impervious cover on the lot will be approximately 3O%. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the front yard setback and lot area variances to allow construction of the new home. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the requested variances are consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances are due principally to the shape of the lot which is a circumstance beyond the control of the property owner. Mueller commented that with the driveway, he is concerned about the amount of hardcover. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. CASE ~92-039: ALLAN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28t 29, 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID ~19-117-23 33 0106. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to recognize a variance for an existing nonconforming garage for the purpose of constrUcting a conforming addition to a conforming principal structure. The detached garage has a 2.67 foot setback from Drury Lane resulting in a 17.33 foot variance. In addition, there is a storage building which encroaches .8 feet onto the neighboring property. Mr. Wigand indicated that the storage building will be removed during construction. 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 199~ Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the existing garage setback variance be recognized for the purpose of adding a conforming addition to the home subject to the following conditions: The existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or relocated to a conforming location on the lot prior to the issuance of a building permit for the expansion of the existing home. ® Approval of the recognition of the garage variance for the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variance is considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the garage was established prior to ordinance adoption. The applicant requested that the shed be allowed to remain until the majority of the addition is completed so he may use it for storage of building materials. NOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Nueller, to recommend approval of the variance as recommend by staff, and to allow the shed to remain until final building inspection. Notion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. ~ D~LS 5246 PIPER ROAD LOT WHIPPLE SHORES PID 25-~17-24 21 0~00. VARIANCE - addition. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant,s request for recognition of an existing detached garage setback variance for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to an existing conforming principal structure. The existing garage which is in sound condition has a .9 foot side yard setback and a 17.3 foot front yard setback resulting in a 3.1' side yard setback variance and a 2.7' front yard setback variance, respectively. The addition will consist of a two story living space (22' x 22') and a deck (10' x 22'). 8 Planning Co~ssion Minutes July 13, 1992 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the existing garage setback variances be recognized for the purpose of adding the conforming addition and deck to the home subject to the following condition: Approval of the recognition of the garage variances for the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand the existing garage without further issuance of a variance from the City of Mound. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following Finding of Fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variances for the purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The existing garage setback variances are considered a practical difficulty under the Zoning Code. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 1992. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT OF MOUND'S FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS, SECTION 330:15 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. The City Planner stated that staff is still waiting for comments from the DNR. Mueller questioned if the Commission is comfortable with the elevation of 933.5 for Mound's floodplain on Minnetonka. Mueller is concerned that this elevation is too high and many properties will not conform to this requirement. Should there be a separate elevation requirement for non-habitable structures only? Mueller suggested a flood plain elevation of 932.5 for all structures on Minnetonka. Staff noted that different elevations are used by the LMCD, the DNR, and other cities on Lake Minnetonka. The City of Greenwood is proposing a flood elevation of 931.5. '~ The Commission requested that staff inquire about different flood elevations being proposed by other cities and currently used by other agencies. It was suggested that staff talk to Ron Quanbeck, 9 Planning Co~m£ss~on N~au~es ~u~y 13, 199~ a Hydrologist for the Watershed, to receive input on a suggested flood elevation for Mound. HOTION made by Hueller, seconded by Hanus to continue the Public Hearing to Consider Amendment of Hound's Floodplain Overlay Regulations to the. ~uly 27, 1992 Planning Com~ission meeting. Hotion carried unanimously. TAX FORFEITED LOTS - REVIEW FOR POTENTIAL RELEASE FOR S~E~ 1) 13 117-24 12 0067 & 0069, AND 2) 19-117-23 32 0128. NOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Michael to recommend that these parcels be released for sale to the adjoin~ng property owners only, as recommended by staff. Hot,on carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE,S REPOR? Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting June 23, 1992 and the Agenda for the July 14, 1992 meeting. Johnson questioned how the issue of exterior maintenance for all properties can get back on the table for discussion. He commented that rental properties are not the only problem in Mound, and there is definitely a problem with exterior maintenance in the City of Mound. HOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Hotion carried unanimously. ~hair, Bill Meyer Attest: 10 '~()() ~( )l "ill [ .MAI'I.I! S'I'IU:I':'I' · \\A( :( )N I,-\. M INNI'~,( )'E\ '% :~,X- GI2 tt2.2191 . \ll:'l'l~,() ~t(~-12(1() July 13, 1992 JUL 1 7 1992 Dear Mound Public Safety - Officer Niccum: We would like to thank you for your efforts in the resusitation of Mrs. Rundell on the evening of July 12, 1992. Your dedication to training, long hours away from home, and superior performance created a very positive outcome for all of you to be very proud of. We believe that if you would not have been so committed to your response that evening and provided the Basic Life Support, Mrs. Rundell may not be functioning in the same capacity today. Your assistance with ALS care was very helpful to extend the most beneficial outcome possible. At this time Mrs. Rundell is admitted to the Special Care Unit at Ridgeview Medical Center with her condition still crititical. In closing we would like to sincerely thank you for your professionalism, hard work, and dedication to provide the highest quality of emergency service response to the Hennepin County area. Respectfully with appreciation, Scott M. Gerber Asst. EMS Education Coordinator/Paramedic Ridgeview Medical Center ..,/ Ru'rt D~,hl~-n Paramedic Ridgeview Medical Center Serving the Health Care Needs of the VVestern and Southwestern Metro Area... July 16, 1992 Dear Councilmember: National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. League Washington, D.C. of 20004 Cities (202) 626-3000 Fax' (202) 626-3043 Officers Pres/dent Glenda E Hood Commissioner. Orlando. Flonda F~rst Vice Pres/dent Donald M Fraser Mayor. Mlnneapohs. Minnesota Second Vice President Sharpe James Mayor. Newark. New Jersey Immediate Past President S~dney J Barthelemy M~yor. New Orleans. Louisiana Executive Dtrector Donald J Borut I am writing to request your help on key federal issues affecting you and your constituents in the coming weeks. When Congress returns on Monday, July 20, it will have less than 30 days of session left before its scheduled adjournment. More than 8,300 bills are pending in Congress, including hundreds affecting the nation's cities and towns. In order to focus our efforts during these remaining days, I am asking your help on five priority issues. We have selected these issues because of their importance to communities and because of the likelihood that Congress will act on them before it finishes. They are: city aid; housing and community development; funding the new surface transportation program; preventing new, unfunded mandates for stormwater, drinking water, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and restoring some community control over cable TV. I have included in this package a fact sheet that describes each of these issues, how the issue could impact the taxpayers and citizens of your community, and what you can do to help make a difference. Together our nearly 150,000 elected municipal officials can wield significant power if we work together to improve and protect our communities. But we can only make a difference if all of us, together with those we represent, make our voices and views known. Your Board of Directors believes we all have not only the opportunity, but also the responsibility to promote the role of our communities in advocating our priorities. I know we can make a difference, and I would welcome and appreciate your help in making that difference. Thank you. Sincerely, Glenda E. Hood President Commissioner, Orlando I~! Pre~ldent~: Tom Bl"adley, Mayor, Los Angeles, Cal~forne ,, F.~rd g Hanl~on, Mayor, Scotland Neck~ North Carohna · Cathy Reynolda, Councilwoman-at-Large. Denver, Colorado · Olm~lor~: Joseph L. ~am~ Councilraember. Umvers~ty C~ty. M~ssoun · Victor A~ha, Mayor. Knoxwlle. Tennessee · Barbara M. A~her, Counc~lmember. Atlanta. Georgia · Margaret Carroll Barrett, Counctl Member. Jackson. Mississ~pp~ · Kenneth Bullock, Ex·cut,ye D~rector. Utah League of Cihes and Towns · James V. Burg·u. Jr., Executive D~rector. Georg*a Mun~c,pat Association · Williara D. Burney, J~., Mayor, Augusta, Ma,ne · Jo~ C. Burmll, Executive D~rector. Maryland Mumc~pal League · I~atrlcla Castlllo, Mayor. Sunnyvale. Cahfomla · Peso Chavez, Councilor Santa New Mexico · ~ D. C~ Mayo~. Beaverton. Orec:jo~ * ~ G. Curmn, CAY Council PresK:Jent, Rochester. New York · Beth Boo~dl! Davl~, Alcierman. Evanston. IIl~no~s · Thoma~ G. F'ltz~mmons, Executive D~rector, Illirtois Mumclpal League · Martin Glitch, Alderman, North Lille Rock, Arkansas · G~d~t GIIla~pte, Council Pres*dent. Gary, Indiana · Vlckl H. Goldbaura, Councilwoman. Southfield. Michigan · Cha~tea K. Hazame, Mayor, Rochester. Minnesota · Wllllara J,,rockl, Ex·cut*va D~rector, Association of Idaho C,ties · Lawrence J. Kelly, Mayor. Daytona Beach Flor,da · BOb Kl~ht, Mayo~. WK:.hita. Kansas · Chl't~toph~' G. [4~k'wood, Execubve D~rector, Maine Municipal Assoc*at~on · Gary Marken~on, Executive Director. Missouri Municipal League · Jeffrey T, Marld-m:l, Mayor, Urbana. Illinois · ~ McCaleb, Mayo~. Abilene, Texas · Mey~ra Oberndorf, Mayor, V~rgm~a Beach, Virg~ma · Judith P. Cleon, CouncitmemlDer, Mad~sen W~scon*sn · Chaflea & Paaqua, Executive D~rect~', Lou~------------------~ana Mun~pal Aseoc~ation · Elaine A. Pfalzgrel, Councflmember, Cedar Falls. Iowa · Be~dre PIckett, Mayor Pro Tempore L~l:)erty Texas · Mark ~¢:~ Council Member, Oklahoraa CAy. Ol~lahoma *' Willl~ F, Stallwo~h, Councilman, B~loxi, Missrss~pp~ · Daniel K, Tabor, Councflmeraber. Inglewood. California · F~ul E. Thornton. Co,u~cllff~%'~b~', V-i~t~, ~ Virginia · Oo~a ~rd, Supe*~'t~or, San Francisco, CatCforma · Welllnglo. W~ Mayor. Denver. Colorado · Mary Roe· Wilcox, Councilwoman Phoenix. Anzona · RIIIIl~i~e H, W~ldn~. Counolwoman, Musk·Con Heights, M~ch~gan · Alice K. Wolf, Mayor, Cambridge. Massachusetls · Rc~,ell G. ~oun~, Jr., Mayor. Henderson North Caroltna FIVE CRITICAL ISSUES FOR CITIES AND TOWNS Issue 1: CITY AID Background. The House passed and sent to the Senate a bill (HR 11 ), the urban aid bill, whiCh includes permanent extensions of the eXpired mortgage revenue and small issue idb bond programs, $5 billion in tax benefits and direct aid for up to 50 urban and rural enterprise zones, and other municipal tax relief measures. That $17 billion bipartisan package includes the following key provisions for cities and towns: Permanent reauthorizations of the four expired priority municipal tax programs; Creation of up to 50 rural and urban enterprise zones over the next five years beginning with eight urban and eight rural zones this year; A five-year, $2.5 billion Enterprise Community Block Grant program for enterprise zone cities and towns; and Increased authority for the_issuance of a new kind of tax exempt redevelopment bonds by cities and towns with enterprise zones. The bill will neither reach enough cities .nor provide enough credit to make available financing for small businesses and job opportunities. Locallmpact. Changing the tax laws to provide incentives for banks to purchase your notes or bonds would both reduce your city's cost of financing as well as encourage your local banks to be partners in economic development. Changing the restrictions on small issue idbs would enable your city to provide Iow interest rate financing for small businesses to create job opportunities. ,~Action. Contact your Senators to urge them to broaden HR 11 to help more communities by supporting the following provisions: Creation of a new Distressed Areas Bond Program, providing a new program outside the state private activity bond volume cap, for the issuance of bonds for distressed areas; Modification of current restrictions on Small issue idbs to permit their use for certain commercial purposes in distressed areas; and Modification of the current restrictions on bank deductibility to permit full bank deductibility and comparable insurance deductibility for banks or insurance companies that purchase or hold general obligation, revenue, or private activity bonds where the proceeds are used in distressed areas or for a bank with a Superior Community Reinvestment Act credit rating, /ssue 2.- MANDATES The federal government continues to impose unfunded mandates on cities and towns, Your help now to modify three such mandates -- stormwater, drinking water, and FLSA -- is critical, S TO RMWA TER Background. Municipalities currently face the prospect of ;mptementing a-federelly-- mandated program to manage stormwater run off that is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion. While municipalities over 100,000 are covered by the current EPA regulations for stormwater management, municipalities with populations below that level will be required to obtain a *permit for every stormwater outfall (at least 8 million) when the current moratorium on this requirement expires on October 1, 1992. An extension of. the moratorium would only postpone implementation of the program in smaller communities and do nothing to provide relief to the cities already covered by EPA's regulations. /.oca//mpact. The unfunded stormwater mandate could increase projected annual capital costs in your city by as much as $8,800 per person; operation and maintenance costs could exceed $11,000 per person per year. =~'Action. Urge your Congressional delegation to act immediately to amend stormwater program incruding: · Amend the Clean Water Act to regulate municipal stormwater run off under a newly-enacted provision separate from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program; · Require management of municipal stormwater through Implementation of Best Management Practices; · Enact a legislative prohibition on requirements for end-of-pipe treatment; · Incorporate municipal "industrial' facilities (e.g., airports, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, vehicle maintenance garages) as part of a system- or jurisdiction-wide stormwater management program; and · Measure compliance on implementation of site-specific Best Management Practices. RADON IN DRINKING WA TER Back.qround. EPA has recently proposed regulations governing radon contaminant levels in drinking water, a level the Science Advisory Board has characterized as 'too Iow' and 'in apparent conflict with common sense.' Locallmpact. EPA estimates that communities will face initial capital costs of ~1.6 billion and annual operating costs of $180 million. The American Water Works Association estimates capital costs at $12 billion and annual operation and management costs at $2.5 billion, costs which will be passed on to local citizens in terms of increased water use fees. .~Action. Senator Robert Smith (R-NH) has circulated a letter to Senators urging the Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) to adopt an amendment precluding EPA's use of appropriated funds to promulgate the radon regulation until EPA completes a risk assessment on the radon rule. Urge your two Senators to join with Senator Smith in requesting inclusion of this amendment in the Fiscal 1993 HUD- Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. FAIR I~4BOR 'STANDARDS 'A CT Background. Many cities have been caught by a technicality of Labor Department regulations and faced with large cash judgments related to compliance with FLSA under the "salary basis' test. Courts have recently found some practices illegal for administrative, executive, and professional municipal employees under the "salary basis" FLSA test. Local Impact. These interpretations could result in the classification of virtually all municipal employees as overtime eligible. Costs nationally could amount to billions. =Action. Urge your Congressional delegation to cosponsor HR 5112 and S 1670, which would eliminate the salary basis test in public employment. At the same time, urge U.S. Labor Secretary Lynn Martin to issue regulations to provide relief from these standards which don't reflect public sector reality. Issue 3: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Background. Both the House and Senate will vote 'on reauthorization bills to extend th-e- ~a'tioh'~'hb~J%ih~ ~h~d 6~m-rh~J'ni~-di~-elbi~-mi~ nt i[iws' 6e~dn:d-th'eir i~bi;r~iit*i~'irati6n date of September 30, 1992. Included in these bills are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME state and local housing block grant programs. Each program would provide local communities with direct assistance and the flexibility to utilize these funds in a way that meets your community's particular housing and community development needs. The Senate bill includes a requirement that cities test and assess the extent of hazardous levels of lead-based paint in federally-subsidized housing. Impact. Current housing and community development activities will be delayed and new activities will be deferred if a reauthorization bill is not enacted this year. Congress is supportive of these programs particularly CDBG. The lead paint provision could totally wipe out your housing dollars if the Senate bill is enacted. ~'Act/on. Contact your Congressional delegation urging their support of the House version of the reauthorization bill and of $4 billion in funding or appropriations for CDBG and $1.5 billion for HOME. Issue 4: FULL FUNDING FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Background. Last December, President Bush signed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which set significantly higher funding levels for highway and public transportation programs. ISTEA set surface transportation funding for next year at $20.5 billion for the first time ensuring that all of our federal gas taxes on the Highway Trust Fund be returned to communities. But the promise has not been kept. The President and House Appropriations committee proposed spending more than $3 billion less than the new ISTEA law promised. An NLC-supported House amendment added $2.4 billion back to the Surface Transportation Program (HR 5518) by taking savings from foreign aid and dedicating them to transportation priorities in our communities. This House amendment would create 150,000 jobs. Local Impact. Unless the Senate fully funds the new Surface Transportation Act, public transportation funds in your community will be cut by 10 percent, highway funds will be cut by 15 percent. That will cut jobs, economic development, and Your city's own planned improvements. ' ~'Actl'on. Contact your Senators to urge their support of HR 5518 as passed by the - House to ensure full funding for surface transportation programs in your community. Issue 5: CABLE TELEVISION Background. Cable companies act as virtual monopolies in almost every City and town. Cable subscription rates are increasing as much as three times the rate of inflation, and consumers who want the educational, news, sports, and entertainment shows available only on cable have no choice but to pay. /-0~al~pact. Citizens who are frustrated with increases in their cable rates, with no comparable increase in service, blame city hall. Under the current cable law, local elected officials are unable to reign in cable operators until renewal time and franchise agreements are often extended for ten years or more. ~'Act/on. The Senate has completed work on its cable bill (S 12) and the House bill (HR 4850) was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee last month. HR 4850 emerges as the strongest vehicle for cable consumer relief in the four years local elected officials have been working on this issue. Contact your Representative to urge support of immediate action on HR 4850 and to oppose any efforts to weaken the bill. Encourage your Representative to support a damages immunity amendment expected to be offered on the floor that would protect cities from large damage claims by cable companies for any regulatory actions they may take under the legislation. MICHAEL J. EHRUCHMANN Chair July 23, 1992 JUL 2 1992 Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: As a local official in. municipal, and county government for' a combined 8ixteen years, I understand fully the historical difficulty that local government has had in relating to metro agencies. From a local perspective, metro or regional government always appear to be trying "to do something" to local government without their input or participation. With that as a backdrop, in our continuing effort to maintain a vital community link with the communities we serve, we are scheduling a series of regional breakfast meetings designed to encourage the participation of local officials, community leaders and legislators in the development of the Regional Transit Board's (RTB) 'Vision for Transit.' You are invited to join other leaders from your 'community to a continental breakfast on: Tuesday, August 11, 1992 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Best Western/Hotel Seville 8151 Bridge Road (S.E. Corner of 1-494 & Hwy 100) Bloomington,. Minnesota At this annual meeting we will share with you the local impacts of the RTB's "Vision for Transit" as well as discuss legislative activities that will affect transit services regionally, such as a state dedicated funding source. This meeting will also provide you with the opportunity to share your ideas for transit with our board members and staff. If public transit is to make a significant contribution to the future of our metropolitan community, it depends on the viability of the communication that exists between you, local community leaders, and the RTB, as the regional transit planner. We know your time is limited, so we will conclude the meeting no later than 9.00 a.m. I and the RTB members look forward to meeting with you on August 11. If you are able to attend, please call our receptionist at 292-8789 by Friday, August 7, so we can make final arrangements. Mich,'el J; Ehrl[~l{mann · Chair Park Centre · 230 5th Slreet * St. Poul, Minnesota 55101 Office 6t2/229-270t · FAX: 6t2/229-2739 Equ~l Opportunity Employer