My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-30-1990
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CC 04-30-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:09 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:22:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 4-30-90 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />sr. LIGHI'S (Cont'd) CounciJ.mernl:er Malone suggested an alternative for <br />consideration would be installation of the phase II <br />lights in this area upon recommen:]ation of the Public SafetyfWorks Committee. He <br />stated that installation of the other three lights proposed would require a <br />review of the overall street light p:llicy; suggested the PSfW Committee could <br />also review the overall policy in terms of installation of special lighting <br />versus standard, possible assessment of property owners affected, and maintenance <br />of special lighting installation. <br /> <br />Council concurred to refer the request for installation of street lights on Arden <br />Oaks Drive, Frank Dolinar-; to the Public SafetyfWorks Committee for consideration <br />and recommendation. Council further requests the Committee review the overall <br />City policy for installation of street lights in terms of installation of special <br />lighting versus standard, possible assessment of property owners and maintenance <br />of special lighting installation and make recommendation to Council at their June <br />25 meeting. <br /> <br />CODE ENFORCEMlliT i <br />1200 INGERSON RD. <br />SI'EIIE l"RElliUI'H <br /> <br />Council was addressed by steve Freimuth, 1200 Ingerson <br />Road, regarding a notice of Ordinance violation he <br />received from the Code Enforcement Officer. <br /> <br />Freimuth advised he received a notice of an Ordinance violation regarding tree <br />branches on his property and was given 30 days to remove the debris. He contacted <br />the Building Inspector to request an extension of ti.Jne and was granted an <br />extension, however, the Building Inspector inadvertently issued a citation <br />regarding the violation. Freimuth contacted the Inspector and Clerk Administrator <br />and resolved the citation and ti.Jne extension. <br /> <br />Freimuth explained the problem he is experiencing with removal of the tree <br />branches, as rubbish haulers do not take such debris without additional costs. He <br />suggested the Council consider having the City "chipper" equipment available for <br />use by residents and setting a schedule for disposal of such yard waste. <br /> <br />Freimuth commented on the following: <br /> <br />1. An attitude change with this Council regarding code enforcement; previously <br />the City had a "laid back" approach and he felt this approach was preferable <br />to =re strict enforcement. <br />2. The tone of the fom letter he received was "cold and ilnpersonal"; preferred <br />more friendly or personal contact by city employees before issuing a letter or <br />citation. <br />3. Better utilization of staff; business ti1ne should not be wasted "looking" for <br />violations. <br />4. Exterior storage p:>rtion of the Ordinance needs to be reviewed and enforced <br />with =muon sense; the City is in violation of the Ordinance by use of an <br />unscreened garbage container at the City Hall. <br />5. Vol1mteered his assistance to staff or Council, in anyway deeme:J. necessary. <br /> <br />Mayor Sather advised the staff has not been instructed to look for code <br />violations; the Building Inspector is out of the roilding on inspections and <br />violations may be noted at that ti1ne. He stated =st code violation reviews are <br />conducted when a =nplaint is received by the code enforcement officials. <br /> <br />Sather explained the fom letter is intended to be strict and businesslike <br />because most violators do not respond to "friendly" letters. He stated the staff <br />will review the letter and revise if necessary. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.