Loading...
1992-06-23101 June 23, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 23, 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: Bill Maclachlan, Larry Paste, Phil & Eva Hasch, Cheryl Fougeron, Ginny Miller, Mike Mason, David Osdoba, Ben Gaudette, V. S. Snodgrass, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Diane Rosencranz, Scott Carlson, Denny Clark, David Johnson, Carole Munson, Dean Hanus, Mark Hanus, Jerry Gibbs, John Eccles, Bradley Blazavic, Mrs. Donald Sween, and John Gabos. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the June 9, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the June 16, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319) 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. 101 102 June 23, 1992 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 Garbage and Rubbish. Every owner of a dwelling, two family, or ~, 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 Areas. The owner tc~n homc ~r 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. 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 representation. Asked if there 102 June 23, 1992 werentt 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 unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE ~92-029~ WILLIAM MACLACHLAN, ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS, 2950 HIGHLAND COURT, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, COBBLESTONE COVE, PID ~23-117-24 41 0031t INSTALL A "CLIFF CLIMBER" WITHIN A SCENIC EASEMENT The Building official reviewed the application. The Staff recommended approval if the structure is properly engineered and all required permits are obtained, including a state electrical permit and a building permit to ensure compliance with any conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 3 vote. Bill Maclachlan, Access Mobility Systems, explained that the car is only 3 feet wide and would be located 12 inches from the existing stairway. There is very little clearing of vegetation required for the installation. The color scheme for the unit has been approved by the DNR. The Council discussed the Scenic Easement and the impact this Cliff Climber would have by adding another structure on this 50 foot wide lot. The city Attorney suggested the following language for the proposed resolution: The City does hereby approve a variance to the Scenic Easement approved by Resolution #86-156 for Cobblestone Cove to allow the construction of a "Cliff Climber" and also allow the maintenance of the area so that the Climber may operate over the allowed space. 103 104 June 23, 1992 Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-71 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO A "SCENIC EASEMENT" TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF "CLIFF CLIMBER" AT LOT 5, BLOCK 1, COBBLESTONE COVE (2950 HIGHLAND COURT), PID %23-117-24 41 0031, P & Z CASE %92- 029 The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPL~T OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on at 6-3 vote, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to the building permit issuance. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-72 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ON LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID %13-117- 24 21 0087, P & Z CASE %92-019 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE ~92-020: DAVID JOHNSON, 4345 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 3, 4 & PART OF 75, 76 & B, PHELPS ISLKND PARK, PID ~19-117-23 13 0007, VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval unanimously. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-72-~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND LEVEL FOUR SEASON PORCH AND A FIRST LEVEL BASEMENT ON PART OF LOTS 75, 76 AND LOT B, THE FIRST REARRANGEMENTOF PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISION AND ALL OF LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 3 AND THE PRIVATE STREET IN PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION, PID %19-117- 2'3 13 0007 (4345 WILSHIRE BLVD.) P & S 104 105 June 23, 1992 eASE #92-02O The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~92-023: VIRGINIA MILLER, 5020 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 6 & 7, SKARP & LINDQ. UIST'S GLEN ARBOR, PID ~13-117-24 42 0013, VARIANCE - RECONSTRUCT DWELLING DUE TO FIRE The City Planner explained the request. He further explained that the applicant will be rebuilding with conforming sideyard setbacks. There are still two variances, one pertaining to lot width and the other pertaining to an existing nonconforming detached garage. The Planning Commission recognized that the existing garage is a safety hazard and ultimately does need to be removed (no site distance when entering and exiting). The Planning Commission recommended that the garage be allowed to remain for 2 years and then be removed. The City Attorney suggested that another provisions be added to the proposed resolution: "Building Permit may be issued so that applicant can commence construction and the balance of the resolution will be deferred for 2 weeks." This will give the applicant and the staff time to work out some sort of agreement on the garage and its removal or relocation. The Council agreed. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-73 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ON PART OF LOT 6, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, (5020 EDGEWATER DRIVE) PID #13-117-24 42 0013, P & Z CASE #93-023 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official reported that he has now received the survey from the applicant. The proposed deck setback to the lake that says 44 feet on Page 1902 is actually 37 feet to the 929.4 elevation. The 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. 105 June 23, 1992 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to reconsider the resolution %92-72 due to new information being received. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to rescind resolution %9Z-72 and refer it back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation based on the new survey that has been submitted and double the variance being required. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE ~92-024: FINE LINE HOMES, 1734 WILDHURST L~NE, LOT 7, & 1/2 8, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0043, VARIANCE - NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME The Building Official reviewed the Commission recommended approval. request. The Planning Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALOT AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT LOT 7 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY HALF OF LOT 8, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT (1734 WILDHURST LANE), PID %13-117-24 11 0043, P & Z CASE %92-024 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE ~92-0Z6: BRADLEY BLAZAVIC, 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 23 0061r VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained that the request is to add an addition that requires a variance of 2.5 feet. The property has two other nonconformities that need to be addressed. The garage is 1.5 feet off the right-of-way line and the other is a storage shed that sits to the rear of the property which is encroaching 1.2 feet onto the neighboring property which is city property. The staff recommendation was approval of the variances to allow construction of the entryway, specifically including the side yard setback, recognition of the garage setback, and immediate removal, prior to building permit, of the storage shed from City property. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated a desire to request a vacation of the neighboring city property which would alleviate the encroachment of the storage shed. The Planning Commission agreed and recommended that the shed be allowed to stay for one year to give the applicant time to request the vacation. 106 June 23, 1992 The proposed resolution does reflect this. The City Attorney recommended that the Council follow the recommendation of the City Planner to have the storage shed removed immediately from the public land to be consistent with action the City is taking in other cases. The applicant stated he was not aware the shed was on public property until he had his survey done in May. There was considerable discussion about the storage shed and its location and whether the adjoining property is public land. The city Planner also asked that the elevations at the floor level be verified as being at the 933.4 mark. The elevation question was not looked at by the Planning Commission. The Council discussed how they could allow the applicant to start his building and address the elevation and removal of the shed questions. The city Attorney suggested that the resolution be amended to read as follows: "The City does hereby approve the 2.5 foot side yard setback variance and recognizes the 18.5 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage and further find that the existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or moved to a conforming position on the lot~ ~ ........................ The house and the storage shed shall meet all elevation requirements or the applicant must return to the Planning Commission to process his application for any required variances." The Council felt this was a good way to allow him to get his building permit and still address the elevation problems. They also agreed that the applicant would not pay another fee for a variance if he had to go back to the Planning Commission about the elevations. The city Attorney asked the applicant if he would move the shed off the public property. The applicant stated he would remove the shed from the public property within two weeks. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 92-75 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION INCLUDING AN 107 108 June 23, 1992 ENTRYWAY ~ KITCHEN EXP~NSION AT LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, (1871 SHOREWOOD L~NE), PID %18-117-23 23 0061, P & S CASE %92-026 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE ~92-028: DIANE ROSENCRANTZ, 5115 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 12 0011, VARIANCE - GARAGE ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-76 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, (5115 BARTLETT BLVD.), PID %24-117-24 12 0011, P & Z CASE %92-028 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Osdoba, 2600 Wilshire Blvd., expressed concern about access to his property when another adjoining neighbor parks vehicles in the platted right-of-way of Channel Road. He stated he had no problem with Ms. Rosencrantz getting the variance for the garage. The City Planner stated there are parking problems in this area but this variance does not impact that problem. This is a Police Dept. enforcement issue if someone parks in front of another person's driveway. 1.10 CASE ~92-030: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS I & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035t VARIANCE The City Planner explained the request. He further explained that since the meeting last night the applicant has flip-flopped the screen porch and the deck. The Planning Commission recommended approval of all the improvements but did not take action on the screened porch and the deck because the setbacks to the lake were of concern and the exact distances were not known. The Planning Commission had the flip-flop position of the deck and porch presented to them verbally but have not seen it nor have they seen what impact that would have on the lake. 108 109 June 23, 1992 The new proposed screen porch is 45 feet from the ordinary high water mark which would require a 5 foot variance and the new deck would be 39 feet which would require an 11 foot variance. Another issue that became part of the discussion last night was the flood elevation of the home. The owner has gotten survey information together today that identifies that the main floor of the structure is at an elevation of 934.4 which is in excess of the 933.5. However, the garage 932.5 is 1 foot under the normal elevation that is required for finished floor in accordance with the flood plain ordinance. In order to process all the variances in this case , the Council would have to add a 1 foot flood variance from the flood provisions contained in Section 300:15 of the City Code for the garage area only. The utilities being added in the garage area would have to be above that elevation according to the Building Official. The Planning Commission has not dealt with the issue of the porch. They specifically elected to pull that out and advised the applicant last night that she could come back and seek an additional variance in the future if she chose to construct that. In the last 24 hours, she has come back to present the flip-flop plan to the Council. The Planner clarified that the existing deck is setback 44 feet from the ordinary high water mark, the proposed porch would be setback 45 feet making the porch slightly smaller than the existing deck and requiring a 5 foot lakeshore setback variance. The applicant stated the reason she flip-flopped the plan was for privacy. The new porch which is next to street right-of-way would give her more privacy from that area. The Council asked if the applicant would consider putting an angle on the deck so that it only required a 5 foot setback variance to the lake. The applicant replied, she would do anything that was required for the deck. Upon further discussion the applicant agreed to reduce the deck size and angle the deck so that it does not encroach anymore than the 5 feet of the porch. The Council approved by consensus the following requests: The addition of a 5' x 15' covered deck at the entry on the front of the home. An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. 109 June 23, 1992 A first floor addition (marked "proposed addition" on survey) measuring 16.3' x 18.9'. A second floor addition measuring approximately 17.8' x 34' over the proposed addition referenced above and the existing portion of the home north of the proposed addition. The addition of a 12' x 14' screen porch on the east side of the home which would require a 5 foot variance. The proposed deck to the south of the proposed screen porch may not encroach more than 5 feet into the lakeshore setback area. 6. 1 foot floor elevation variance for the garage area. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve the above variances as outlined in items 1-6 and bring it back to the next meeting for formal approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 CASE #92-031: JOHN & CHRISTINE GABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19 & PT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0009, VARIANCE The City Planner reviewed the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission The applicant was recommendations. present and agreed with the proposed MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve the variances as recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission and bring it back to the next meeting for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 PUBLIC L~NDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LkND ALTERATION, MIKE & MARTHA MASONt 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, REQUEST TO REPLACE RETAINING WALL The Building Official explained the request. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on a 8-1 vote. The Council reviewed the proposed resolution and asked that item b. be removed because it was repetitive and add the following: "b. Upon inspection and approval, the light pole is approved for a maintenance permit." The applicant should come in and fill out a 110 June 23, 1992 maintenance permit application for the light. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR LAND ALTERATIONS TO ALLOW A BOULDER RETAINING WALL, FILLING AND LEVELING OF THE GRADE AND PLANTING OF GRASS AND WILD FLOWERS ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK 14, DEVON, DOCK SITE #43770 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: CONDITION OF BOATHOUSE AND MINIMUM REPAIRS NEEDED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES 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 with her 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 could 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 111 112 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. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to hold any action on this until the meeting on July 28, 199Z, to give the Building Official time to clarify information submitted in the structural engineer's letter and try to answer the questions above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 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 and 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. 113 114 June 23, 1992 Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, an abutting property owner to Commons. He was not happy with having property abutting commons. He related several items that he has a problem with: 1. 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 commons. 1.15 DISCUSSION: MARKING OF COMMONS The City Manager reported that the Park Director has prioritized the sites for the marking of the Commons. How to fund these markings has been discussed at several COW Meetings. Councilmember Ahrens brought to his attention that the Liquor Fund was suggested as a possible source of funding at one of those meetings and it was not in the minutes. There were other options, i.e. Docks Program or a subsidy from the General Fund. The Council questioned how the areas were prioritized. The City Manager stated he would have the Park Director explain how he determined the priorities. The Council asked that this be brought up at a future meeting. No action was taken on this item. 1.16 DISCUSSION: 1993 PROPOSED LMCD BUDGET The Council expressed concern about the budget reduction in LMCD Communities Levy and in the increase in Licenses and Permits. They asked that Mound's LMCD Representative, Tom Reese and State Representative, Steve Smith be invited to the August llth Council Meeting to discuss this and other issues. 1.17 DISCUSSION: CITY NEWSLETTER. The City Manager reported that the City's newsletter editor, Ann Hensen, has resigned. He will be working to find another editor. 1.18 APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH (INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL) t 4 OR 5 LOCATIONS AND OVERHEAD BANNER Our Lady of the Lake has applied for a permit for 5 portable signs and 1 banner advertising the Incredible Festival. They would be up from July 1 through July 31, 1992 and would be placed at the following locations: 114 June 23, 1992 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depot. Railroad tracks across from Ben Franklin. 3 Points (Old Gas Station). North wall of Our Lady of the Lake church. Super America station. Banner over County Road 110 in The Highlands. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to approve the portable sign application of Our Lady of the Lake as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.91 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $200,501.39, when funds become available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae Financial Report for May 1992, as prepared by Finance Director John Norman. B. Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 1992. C. REMINDER: Mound City Days - June 19-21, 1992. D. Letter from Ted Fox to Councilmembers. Ee We will be having an informal reception at Mound City Hall, Monday, June 22, 1992, at 3:00 P.M. for Sgt. Brad Roy who is retiring after nearly 30 years of employment with the City of Mound. Please come and wish Brad and his wife Sandy well as they leave for the Oregon coast. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 1:15 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~dw~rd J ~ Shu~Cie, Jr. , City Manager Attest: City Clerk 115 BILLS JUNE 23, 1992 BATCH 2062 $ 200,501.39 TOTAL BILLS $ 200,501.39