Laserfiche WebLink
<br />setback or taken it down. He felt this would have been an appropriate action because the City <br />was already there dealing with the other violation. He stated that if the City didn't choose to do <br />it then and now decides to start ticketing the owner, this feels, to him, like the City is just trying <br />to agitate the homeowner. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that, in retrospect, it would have made sense in that case to <br />follow Councilmember Dehen's suggestion. He stated that perhaps it would be appropriate to <br />bring in the Community Development Department which enforces zoning codes and setbacks to <br />have them work along side the nuisance abatement enforcement. He stated that if they work <br />together, it will not seem as though the City is "ripping the Band-aid off twice". <br /> <br />Police Chief Way stated that the new abatement process is under Chapter 9 and the building <br />being placed within the setback is covered under Chapter 5, which is why it wasn't addressed at <br />the same time. <br /> <br />Interim Community Development Director Frolik stated that she would still like guidance from <br />the City on how much of a contractor it will be in the situations where a home needs siding or <br />roofing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that during earlier discussions about the abatement process, he felt it <br />was in place to deal with major violations, such as junk cars in people's yards. He stated that, in <br />his opinion, if the City goes further than looking at major violators and getting those properties <br />cleaned up that it seems as though the City is nitpicking and he feels the City has "bigger fish to <br />fry". He thinks this can get out of hand easily with people reporting their neighbors for having <br />grass that is 'l'4 of an inch too long. He thinks the City should clean up major violations and any <br />further refinement is nitpicking. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated that the City will run the risk of tagging some property owners <br />and ignoring others. <br /> <br />Interim Community Development Director Frolik stated that if the City Council feels it is <br />intrusive to abate in these situations that is fine, but the City cannot turn its head on code <br />violations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that she agrees, somewhat, with Councilmember Look, but <br />would argue that having an RV parked on the side of your house would be less offensive than <br />looking at the side of a home that does not have siding. She stated that if the City does not side <br />the home, then she would like to know what is appropriate for the City to do. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that he feels that the City needs to have a "hammer" in place to <br />deal with the small percentage of the population who violate the codes. He stated that he likes <br />the idea of having the authority in place for the City to be able to do what it takes to get things <br />done, but not always use it. He suggested that the City start off with a ticketing process to get <br />things done so the City does not drag into another I5-year process like it did behind Grosslein. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked if the City had sent out letters in these situations. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session I December 11,2007 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br />