Laserfiche WebLink
262 <br />COUNCIL MEETING JULY 26, 1993 <br />4. The Friends of the Park Foundation accepted a donation for a <br />memorial play train by a couple who wish to see the apparatus go <br />into Sunrise Park. The residents were able to donate $3,000.00 <br />for this equipment and asked the Park Board to finance the <br />balance of $850.00. The donating couple would be responsible for <br />a plaque. <br />Council Member Kuether moved to approve the Park Board <br />recommendation for Dedicated Park expenditures. Council Member <br />Elliott seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson noted that <br />three (3) of the four (4) requests have some donations from the <br />public and said this is wonderful involvement from the public. <br />Voting on the motion, motion carried unanimously. <br />FIRST READING, ORDINANCE NO. 93 - 09, AMENDING THE LINO LAKES <br />CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 904, DECLARING WEEDS AND GRASS OVER <br />EIGHT (8) INCHES IN HEIGHT AND WEEDS WHICH HAVE GONE TO SEED OR <br />GROWING IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES TO BE A NUISANCE, AND PROVIDING <br />A METHOD FOR THE REMOVAL THEREOF <br />Mr. Asleson explained that staff has been unable to respond to <br />citizen complaints of unkept/unmowed lawns in developed <br />residential areas. The present ordinances only address noxious <br />weeds as described in State Statutes, Chapter 18.175. Several <br />model ordinances were used to draft the ordinance before the City <br />Council today. Mr. Asleson explained the ordinance as well as <br />the meaning of several terms. He noted that one (1) concern had <br />been lots of more than one (1) acre. These lots are specifically <br />addressed in the updated draft ordinance. Mr. Asleson also <br />outlined areas excluded from the ordinance. He noted that the <br />exclusion should address the concerns of the residents who wrote <br />letters to the City Council. <br />Mayor Reinert noted that a letter has been received from a <br />concerned resident regarding wildflowers and songbirds. He noted <br />that the intent of the ordinance is not to destroy habitat and <br />asked that a response be written to the letter writer. <br />Council Member Elliott explained that she had worked on the draft <br />ordinance with Mr. Asleson and explained that this ordinance <br />pertains to a developed subdivision where one (1) lot in a block <br />of lots is not maintained. <br />Mr. Volk asked that the new ordinance contain references to City <br />owned right-of-ways, easements and other City owned property. <br />Mr. Asleson said he felt this ordinance only provides a mechanism <br />for staff to respond to citizen complaints and to clarify noxious <br />weeds. The intention is not to have someone going from street to <br />PAGE 8 <br />1 <br />