Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Regul~council Meeting, June 29, 1987 . <br />Page 3 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Council requested the report be returned to them for review at a Regular <br />Council meeting in Ausust. <br /> <br />. COUNTY RD. I; <br />REALIGNMENT <br /> <br />Council was referred to a letter from Ramsey County <br />Public Works (6-10-87), request ins 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 /> <br />Barry Peters reviewed the County report and outlined 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 Eosineer, indicated <br />that none of the first three aiternates in the report were better than each <br />other, however, he expressed concern that realignment of County Road I may <br />change the KSA 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 /> <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 /> <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 realisnment of County <br />Road I. Hotion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />POT O'GOLD <br />BINGO PARLOR <br /> <br />The Clerk Administrator reported that the landscape <br />and lighting plan ror 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 /> <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 /> <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 buildins <br />and compliance with all inspections. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 Council. <br />