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