My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2009/06/22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
Agenda Packets - 2009/06/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:34 PM
Creation date
7/4/2018 11:09:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/22/2009
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/22/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council May 26, 2009 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated his preference to be proactive, not reactive, and asked what other 1 <br />cities do with outdoor street dances on private property or outdoor events at businesses. He 2 <br />noted that other cities require a permit and a fee to cover the City’s costs. He suggested the 3 <br />existing ordinance language be held in abeyance until new language is crafted. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Mayor Flaherty stated he was surprised the chapter was deleted and agreed with Council Member 6 <br />Stigney that it is reactionary. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Clerk-Administrator Ericson explained the ordinance dealt with outdoor special events by 9 <br />requiring a permit and permit fee and alerted the City that the event would occur. But, any 10 <br />response would be reactionary if a problem occurred (noise, debris). He suggested that issuing a 11 <br />permit does not mean there would be no violations. Chapter 611 only let the City know what 12 <br />was going on and provided guidelines, which they needed to do anyway. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mayor Flaherty stated the benefit is that the City will know ahead of time that an event is being 15 <br />planned. He agreed the current Code was restrictive and cumbersome but he wanted something 16 <br />in place to assure protection for the City’s residents. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Gunn asked if a permit is needed should a band practice in someone’s garage 19 <br />and people come to listen. She felt Chapter 611 was too restrictive so she supports the motion to 20 <br />delete that Chapter and allow the Code to address problems that may arise. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Hull asked if the City will oversee the event scheduled at Moe’s. Clerk-23 <br />Administrator Ericson stated Chapter 611 will not change the City’s response to addressing 24 <br />outdoor events. He noted the Council already controls events held on public property. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council Member Mueller stated she had originally felt the ordinance was the right thing to do 27 <br />since it spelled out the rules to assure compliance and not have an event that created a nuisance 28 <br />for residents. However, implementing that ordinance caused problems at the staff level because 29 <br />of the time it took to issue event permits. She stated staff time is immensely valuable but an 30 <br />additional staff person would be needed to issue event permits, ensure compliance, and address 31 <br />violations. Council Member Mueller stated she does not support Chapter 611. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Council Member Stigney stated the intent was to regulate outdoor events, noting some serve beer 34 <br />and/or liquor. He suggested other cities have crafted such an ordinance because there were 35 <br />problems with those events. Council Member Stigney stated he does not support deleting 36 <br />Chapter 611 and thinks the permitting process, if crafted properly, will establish guidelines, a 37 <br />permit fee, and protect the City. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Attorney Riggs stated the Council has the authority to advise staff to not enforce the ordinance 40 <br />pending changes. He noted the proposed ordinance requires two readings. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Gunn felt it was not worth the effort to reword Chapter 611 and that a new 43 <br />Chapter can be drafted to better suit the City’s needs. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.