Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5F - Civil Enforcement Actions 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: December 19, 2005 SF Frank Boyles, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to request City Council approval of a resolution which would authorize civil enforcement action for three code enforcement matters which we have been unable to resolve. History The building inspection division of the Planning Department is responsible for code enforcement matters. During the course of a typical year, they receive in excess of 100 complaints, conduct investigations of each and work closely with property owners to resolve the identified problems. Only when cooperation fails is enforcement sought through the courts. Current Circumstances There are three cases in this category. The City Council discussed each at their November 7,2005, workshop and directed the staff to proceed with civil enforcement action. A brief description of each follows. Property address: 3894 Green Heights Trail In April 2000, the property owner inquired about the process for replacing an existing deck with a larger deck. He was advised that a new survey would be needed as the property is riparian and within the shoreland district. Later that April, the staff verified the old deck dimensions to be 15.75' X 8'. The inspector was advised that the property owner intended to build a bigger deck with or without a permit. On May 8, 2000, the staff verified that the old deck had been replaced with a 16' X 16' deck. Misdemeanor court action was initiated. The court ordered the property owner to either cut back the deck to the original dimensions, or request a variance. A variance was requested and denied by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2002. On August 28, 2002, a permit was picked up for the 16' X 8' deck, but no work has taken place to make the deck compliant. An aerial picture is attached. Property address: 4307 Grainwood Circle In 1998, the property owner applied for a 9' variance to the 50' setback from the ordinary high water mark. The variance was denied. The homeowner proceeded to build two decks without a permit or variance. One deck was determined to be a platform and is, therefore, legal. The other is attached www.cityofpriorlake.com I.\COUNCIL \!\GNRPTS\200fi\ 121 D05?fKYrtlr~~.I2Jft.'1.4~3~sY)(~x 952.447.4245 - 1 ISSUES: FINANCIAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: to the building and, therefore, needs a permit and variance. The City took the property owner to court. The court found in the City's favor and fined the property owner $500, but allowed the deck to stand. Property address: 5780 150th Street Attached is an agenda report from the October 4, 2004, City Council meeting. That report recites the history of this case. The City Council gave the staff authorization to pursue civil enforcement at that time. We have once again tried to work with the property owner to no avail. So the request is that the Council reaffirms their previous direction to resort to civil litigation. Conclusion Pursuing enforcement through the misdemeanor process is not always effective. The cases outlined above demonstrate this fact. The next enforcement step is civil litigation. This process results in compliance (assuming the courts find in favor of the City). The key issue is cost. Typical civil cases can cost $3,000 or more. To minimize costs, the City Attorney's office has developed form documents for the staff to fill out to minimize costs. If the Council were to decide not to move ahead, the message would be, "play hard ball with the City if you want something because they will fold." This would not be an equitable position to all those persons who follow the ordinances by seeking permits, variances or other appropriate administrative actions. The three cases will result in additional costs to the City as they are not within the City's retainer. 1. Adopt the attached resolution directing the City Attorney to pursue civil litigation. 2. Take no action. Alternative #1. I\COUNC!L\.A.C;NRPTS\2005\12190b civil enforcement 21ctbnsJOC 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 RESOLUTION 05-xx Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Building Inspection Division of the Planning Department is responsible for code enforcement; and WHEREAS, In excess of 100 code enforcement cases are investigated and resolved cooperatively with the property owner each year; and WHEREAS, The City Council as a matter of public policy desires to achieve compliance for all code violations; and WHEREAS, Code violations at three addresses are outstanding, two of which have previously been the subject of court decisions; and WHEREAS, The addresses in violation of city code enforcement are: 3894 Watersedge Trail 4307 Grainwood Circle 5780 150th Street NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The City Attorney is hereby directed to seek code compliance for the above named properties through the civil litigation process. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006. YES NO Haugen Haugen Fleming Fleming leMair leMair Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska Frank Boyles, City Manager R\R ESOLUTI\!\DMiNRES\200E\ i 2', 905 (;\,,: (;nfGrcC(n~:cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 October 4, 2004 5C Frank Boyles, City Manager AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE INITIATION OF CIVIL ACTION TO BRING AN INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE A FENCE ERECTED WITHIN A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. DISCUSSION: Historv: In 1974, a gravity sanitary sewer was installed between 5780 and 5788 150th Avenue within 50 feet of the lake. Subsequently, a force main and lift station were installed in the same area. In 1994, a storm sewer pipe was installed in the same location, a portion of which was re-built in 2003 as part of the 2003 street reconstruction project. These facilities are located some 300 feet from 150th Street on an easement between the two properties. The easement is necessary to get repair/maintenance personnel and equipment from 150th to the utilities. In 2000, one of the property owners decided to build a 6 foot fence approximately 75 feet long along the property line and within the easement. City representatives asked that the fence be removed since it prohibits access to the utilities. For a period of time during the 2003 improvement project, the fence was removed, but this year, the fence was re-installed, columnar pines were added to extend the fence line further toward the lake and landscaping (retaining wall) was done at the water's edge within the easement. Within the last 30 days, Attorney Pace sent a letter to the Vetters (attached) re-affirming the City's position. Attached is a copy of the response Ms. Pace received from the Vetter's counsel. Numerous conversations and correspondence have taken place between the City and the property owner. Current Circumstances: It is apparent to me that there is not a productive way to work out an agreement with the property owner. They have not and will not agree to move the fence from the City's easement. They claim it is removable but the posts are in concrete. There is a gate in hte immediate vicinity of the lift station, but the fence itself forces City maintenance crews onto private property to gain access to the utilities. So far, the adjacent property owners have been extremely sympathetic and have cooperated with the City when access was necessary. Accordingly, I am requesting that the City Council authorize the initiation of civil enforcement as may be needed to assure the removal of the fence, pine trees, landscaping within the easement, and/or granting of an additional easement to provide access. Conclusion: The Council should determine if civil enforcement action is appropriate and direct the staff accordingly. ISSUES: The history of discussions on this matter goes back to 2001. The discussions have been exacerbated by a feud between this property owner and the neighbor, www.cityofpriorlake.com 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2004\VETTE~Rd}{1!-f5P~~1~~ / Fax 952.447.4245 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: as well as the activities associated with the 2003 Street Reconstruction Project. Little progress has been made. The staff's concern is that in an emergency, the staff would have to destroy the fence and landscaping to access the lift station and utilities and to use the Vetter's driveway over which we have no easements, or walk down the easement which may mean that our most important piece of equipment, the Vacall, cannot access the lift station. Slow or partial access could result in greater damage to homes served by the lift station and additional liability claims against the City from these homeowners. A civil action, will resolve the access question either by re-establishing productive discussions or by securing a court order. (1) Authorize initiation of civil action through adoption of the consent agenda. (2) Remove the item from the consent agenda and take no action or a modified position on the matter. Alternative (1). 1:\COUNCIL\AGNRPTS\2004\VETTER CIVIL PROCEED.DOC 3894 WATERSEDGE TRAIL S.W. ~ In April of 2000 Don Scherer inquired of the City the process for replacing an existing deck with a larger deck. When informed a new survey would be needed Mr. Scherer left without applying. ~ On 4/17/00 Staffwent out to field verify the old deck at 15.75 ft. x 8ft. Mr. Scherer was told an exact replacement could be built with just a site plan. Mr. Scherer told the Staff member he intended to build a bigger deck with or without a permit. ~ On 5/08/00 a revisit to the site found a new 16 ft. x 16 ft. deck. ~ After several attempts to get Mr. Scherer to comply failed. Court action was taken. ~ Mr. Scherer was told by the Court to either cut back the deck to comply or try for a variance. On 4/22/02 the planning commission denied a variance. ~ A permit was picked up on 8/28/02 for a 16 ft. x 8 ft. deck. But no work has done to bring this deck into compliance. ~ The next step on this complaint would be a civil case in hopes of getting the deck reduced to 16ft. x8ft. 4307 GRAINWOOD CIRCLE N.E. ~ In 1998 Tom Vidmar applied for a 9ft variance to the 50ft. setback from the OHWM. The variance was denied. ~ Mr. Vidmar proceeded to build a deck without a permit, or the variance needed. This was a ground level deck that only needed to have the grade around it raised up, and not attached to the house, and it would meet the definition of a platform. A platform does not require a permit. ~ When Staff went to check on compliance of this deck, it was discovered that another deck had been built above the lower deck.. This deck also would have needed a variance from the rear yard setback to the lake of 75ft. ~ The City took Mr. Vidmar to court for these violations and he was found guilty. The Judge fined him $500 but he was allowed to keep the deck. The Judge would not make him take down something that had already been built. ~ The next step on this complaint would be a civil case in hopes of getting the deck ordered to be removed.