Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, June 29, 1987 <br /> Page 3 <br />. Council consensus was that the Planner be requested to survey other communities <br /> and draft a report establishing guidelines for completion of residential homes; <br /> the report should encompass the following items: <br /> - Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy required. <br /> - Time frame for completion of residential homes. <br /> - Clean up of construction materials. <br /> - Completion of driveways and lawns by seeding or sod. <br /> - Provision for residents to request extensions due to hardship or <br /> mitigating circumstances. <br /> - Any other aspects of single family construction that the Planner deems <br /> appropriate to be included. <br /> Council requested the report be returned to them for review at a Regular <br /> Council meeting in August. <br /> . COUNTY RD. I; Council was referred to a letter from Ramsey County <br /> REALIGNMENT Public Works (6-10-87), requesting Arden Hills review <br /> the alternatives for the realignment of County Road I <br /> from Hamline Ave. to Lexington Avenue and report to the County which <br /> alternative is preferred. <br /> Barry Peters reviewed the County report and ou~lined the pros and cons of each <br /> alternative 'as per the matrix provided with the report. Peters advised that <br /> County prefers Alternative #1: Glen Van Wormer, Traffic Engineer, indicated <br />. that none of the first three alternates in the report were better than each <br /> other, however, he expressed concern that realignment of County Road I may <br /> change the MSA status of Hamline Avenue in Arden Hills. He also noted that the <br /> cost of implementation of Alternatives 1 thru 3 would be approximately the <br /> same. <br /> Council discussed the reasons listed in the County report for realignment of <br /> County Road I, possible placement of a traffic signal at County Road I and <br /> Hamline Avenue, and cost participation between the cities and the County. <br /> Sather moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council defers <br /> comment on preference for the realignment of County Road I until such time as <br /> information has been received from the School District, Lake Johanna Volunteer <br /> Fire Department and the City of Shoreview relative to realignment of County <br /> Road I. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> POT O'GOLD the Clerk Administrator reported that the landscape <br /> BINGO PARLOR and lighting plan for the Pot 0' Gold Bingo Parlor <br /> were to be returned to Council for their review no <br /> later than June 1987. She advised that Planner Miller had not received a copy <br /> of the landscape plan which identified the plantings (description and size) <br /> and therefore was unable to recommend approval. <br /> After discussion. Council concurred that approval from Planner Miller was <br /> sufficient and the landscape plan would not have to be reviewed by Council at <br />. this time. It was determined that the lighting plan submitted when public hall <br /> use was granted would be sufficient. <br /> Council discussed the registered letter sent to Mr. Walsh from the Building <br /> Inspector (6-26-87). Discussion ensued relative to the issuance of certificates <br /> of occupancy for commercial properties prior to the completion of the building <br /> and compliance with all inspections. <br /> Jim Adams, Manager of Walsh properties, stated it was his understanding that <br /> all final inspections of the building had been completed; commented that the <br /> property owner would cooperate with all requests in the letter. <br /> Morrison reported that after discussion with the Building Inspector, it was her <br /> understanding that certificates of occupancy had been issued in the past prior <br /> to completion of all inspections to eliminate further delay to the occupants. <br /> She explained that periodical inspections of the premises had been done by the <br />. electrical, plumbing, building and heating inspectors. <br /> Council concurred that in the future no certificates of occupancy should be <br /> issued for business properties until owner's compliance with all codes are met <br /> and all inspections of the business have been completed. Council determined <br /> that the items listed in the Building Inspector's letter of 6-26-87 require <br /> administrative approval, when accomplished, and would not have to be reviewed <br /> by Counc i 1. <br />