CC 08-09-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . ~ ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9 1999 , 6 Ms. Randall again reviewed staff's concerns, and recommendations for the college to conform to the ninety-degree angle as recommended by staff, for safety issues, and improved turning movements. Mr. Weber provided site photos for City Council review. Councilmembers expressed various concerns, including; exiting traffic onto Highway 51; distractions to cars on Highway 51 from exiting traffic from the college campus; security issues; actual location of the proposed roadway, and staff rationale for the recommended location. After further discussion, it was the consensus of Councilmembers, staff and college representatives, that a compromise of Plan C and Plan D would be possible, and would accomplish the objectives of all parties. MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve part two of Planning Case #99-10, Site Plan, for the alignment and construction of the east entrance gate, as consistent with the compromise plan providing for a combination of Plans C and D, as outlined by staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Draft Ordinance, Sump Pumps, Call for Informational Meeting Mr. Stafford reviewed a proposed ordinance allowing for sump pump inspections as part of the upcoming residential water meter replacement project. Mr. Stafford recommended that the City Council hold an informational meeting for residents at the August 30, 1999 City Council meeting. Mr. Stafford stated that a draft ordinance bad been included for Council review, but another draft would need to be prepared to correspond with the City's existing municipal code, as the draft presented was prepared for inclusion in the City's recodified utility chapter. Councilmember Malone noted that the City's existing municipal code provided recourse for illegal sump pump connections, but the new ordinance would simply clarify the City's requirements, and make the ruling more specific. Councilmembers Larson and Aplikowski expressed concerns regarding the thirty-day compliance period before penalties were incurred, or whether the City needed to allow more time for extenuating circumstances. Several Councilmembers suggested that the City allow sixty days, and allow for the City to use its discretion for compliance. Councilmember Malone clarified that the proposed ordinance states "shall", not "will," so the City would be allowed to use its discretion. Councilmember Larson requested staff to remove the fee portion of the ordinance, allowing for adoption by resolution, consistent with other fees.