07-18-11-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — JULY 18, 2011 5 2. Outlining the responsibilities of residents in terms of maintaining the boulevard adjacent to their property; 3. Clarifying the City's responsibilities in terms of ensuring the safe and efficient use of the ROW. City Planner Beekman explained that Staff has included a draft ROW Maintenance Ordinance for Council review and is requesting that the Council review the attached draft ordinance and provide comment and direction on it. Based on the discussion this evening, staff will revise the draft ordinance and bring it back either for Council approval, or for further discussion. Because all proposed revisions of the City Code do not impact Chapter 13, the Zoning Code, these revisions would not require a public hearing, nor review by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Holmes suggested there be a clear definition of ROW included in the ordinance and that the definition also state the difference between improved and unimproved ROW. She also questioned the width of ROW and how a resident knows that information. City Planner Beekman explained that it is the responsibility of the property owner to determine their property lines. Sometimes the City has a plat map available, but if there is none, or if the property owner can't find the property pins, they will have to have a surveyor establish the location of the property lines. Councilmember Tamble asked if that language is in the Code. City Planner Beekman stated she is not sure whether or not it is included but she also stated that the ROW varies from one road to another. She added that the property owner actually owns to the center of the ROW. The streets are dedicated to the City, not deeded. Councilmember Holden was concerned about the sections of the new code referring to permits being issued by a specific staff member. She suggested that all such references be changed to read "the City" will issue such permits. Councilmember Holmes suggested that Section D under Subdivision 3 be revised to state more clearly that such costs will be the responsibility of the property owner. Discussion ensued regarding the number of diseased trees in the City; there are approximately 70, 50 of which are currently the City's responsibility to remove. Councilmember Holden asked if this proposed ordinance amendment passes, would property owners then be expected to cover the cost of those diseased trees already identified by the City. Parks and Recreation Manager Olson explained that the diseased trees must be removed within a specific time period once they've been identified. By the time this ordinance amendment has passed, the diseased trees will have been required to be removed. Councilmember Holmes asked about rain gardens located in the ROW.