07-02-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 02, 2013 Page 5 of 12 (Postponed by staff to 7/16/2013 meeting) ITEM 13: APPROVE 2013/2014 CIP Finance Director Bendel summarized the 2013/2014 CIP. Council Member Nelson discussed that the water fund is responsible to make the payments. Must be mindful that if development does not happen, City can be on the hook. Mayor Pearson noted that there are grants and other funding items to consider. The City cannot ignore that. Council Member Smith said she felt more comfortable than she did a year ago. If that wasn’t the case, she would not feel as comfortable. Exciting now that the development is here. Council Member Park noted that the numbers presented at the workshop were conservative. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE 2013 PORTION OF THE 2013-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 14: APPROVE BONDING LEVEL Finance Director Bendel summarized the proposed bonding level. The numbers are lower than the project due to grant funding that Griffin obtained. The true numbers will be closer to $1.6 million. The bonding on the Section 34 project is 100% assessed, so there will be no levy impact. There was no discussion or questions. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO APPROVE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS. Council Member Park seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-0. ITEM 15: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – FENCE ORDINANCE; ORDINANCE 08-085 Planning Director Klatt explained the history of the proposal and the updated proposal and the alternative proposal. There have been two previous council meetings and a workshop that involved this item. Council Member Bloyer asked about the old fence code involving running fences into lakes. Mr. Klatt said it may have been included in the shoreline ordinance, but he would check. Council Member Smith asked about alternate (e)(2) should read “fence” and not “wall.” It is addressed in (e)(3). Mr. Klatt confirmed that the term “wall” could be removed. Ms. Smith explained her frustration regarding the fence ordinance history. She was not on council yet, but there was a year of planning commission meetings creating current ordinance. Current language is unclear and should be clarified, but not substantially changed. All through the process, this previous year of work has not been considered. Allowing fences over 6 ft goes against the open space nature that the city wants. Council Member Park asked about if someone could obtain a variance to construct a 6ft fence. Mr. Klatt answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bloyer asked about previously adopted language allowing screening fences and whether that was needed or included. Mr. Klatt explained it was not included, but could be easily added back at a later date.