Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, November 9, 1987 \ <br /> Page 4 <br /> ORD #251 (Cont'd) Council discussed the St. Paul Nuisance Ordinance, <br /> "i~'., provided by the Attorney, and concurred that the <br /> ordinance would not be applicable in Arden Hills, nor does it address exterior <br /> of existing buildings which have not been completed. <br /> Hansen suggested directing the Attorney to draft or add language to the . <br /> proposed ordinance which relates to abatement of existing construction that has <br /> not been completed. <br /> Winiecki suggested referral to Planning Commission for their input and <br /> suggestions that could form the basis for language which would address the <br /> concerns relative to existing homes or buildings which have remained <br /> uncompleted over a number of years. <br /> Sather pointed out that, in his opinion, the Attorney's intent was for a <br /> comparison to be drawn by Council between St. Paul's Nuisance Ord. and ours, to <br /> determine areas for inclusion that would provide Arden Hills ordinance with <br /> more enforc1bility. He also stated that the concerns of the Building Inspector, <br /> relative to exterior completion of sidewalks and driveways, could be deleted <br /> from Ordinance #251 and the matter could be addressed in our nuisance <br /> ordinance. <br /> Mayor Woodburn explained that the main concern and real issue is how to get <br /> existing buildings. that have stood uncompleted for 5 years or more, completed; <br /> suggested the Attorney address that concern and clsrify a method for <br /> enforcement as it relates to existing buildings. <br /> The Clerk Administrator stated in her opinion, after conversations with the . <br /> Attorney, there are two separate issues being discussed: <br /> 1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 251 [with revisions for allowing additional time <br /> for completion under Section 1 (c)] to address construction after adoption <br /> of the Ordinance; and, <br /> 2. The purpose of sending St. Paul's new Nuisance Ordinance was to compare it <br /> with ours to see if there was anything Council deemed appropriate for <br /> inclusion in our current nuisance ordinance, so that it could relate to <br /> houses already constructed but not completed. <br /> Morrison explained that Ord. #251 deals with new cons~ruction; Council could <br /> strengthen our current nuisance ordinance to deal with the existing housing <br /> that remains not completed. <br /> Hansen stated it was her opinion that the St. Paul Ordinance has no provisions <br /> which are applicable to Arden Hills problem. <br /> Morrison questioned if the Nuisance Abatement Section may be applicable; <br /> explained that if Council desires to adopt Ordinance #251, Lynden could then <br /> draft an amendment to the current nuisance ordinance which addresses Council <br /> concerns relative to completion of existing housing. - <br /> Council reviewed Chapter 45, Subd. 1 of St. Paul's Ordinance and were unable to <br /> determine if this section would be aplicable to Arden Hills. <br /> Council discussed placement of language in Ordinance #251 to provide for a <br /> time-frame for completion of existing non-completed construction before it is <br /> declared a nuisance and penalized under our current nuisance ordinance. <br /> Mayor Woodburn suggested the Attorney insert appropriate language in Ordinance <br /> #251, such as; "Old housing must have exterior completed within two years or <br /> will be declared a nuisance and subject to penalty as outlined in the Arden <br /> Hills Nuisance Ordinance." <br /> Morrison explained that insertion may require an amendment to the nuisance <br /> ordinance also; or amend Ordinance #251 to include the nuisance ordinance <br /> amendment. <br /> Council concurred to request Attorney Lynden revise Ordinance 1/251 to include <br /> language which pertains to existing homes, which have uncompleted exteriors; <br /> setting a time-frame for completion before they are deemed a nuisance and I <br /> subject to pen~lty under Arden hills current Nuisance Ordinance, and, <br /> furthermore, that Lynden advise if this would adequately address Council <br /> concerns aa discussed at this meeting. Council further concurred to discuss <br /> this matter at their Regular Council meeting to be held November 3D, 1987, and <br /> requested the Attorney's response at that meeting. <br />