My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 05/28/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2002
>
Agenda - Council - 05/28/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:08:01 AM
Creation date
9/2/2003 3:15:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
05/28/2002
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
323
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
Councilmember Kurak noted that she also reviewed the New Brighton ordinance. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman stated that he would distribute the New Brighton ordinance for <br />Council review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendr/ksen inquired if they are looking at relaxing the issues of mother-in-law <br />apartments etc. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested placing the issue on a future work session agenda. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that having a place for an elderly person on the property is <br />different than a duplex. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that having an issue where a grandma might need help for a <br />while is different than a developer having the ability of developing a site with more than one <br />unit. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested discussing that issue further as part of the Chapter 9 rewrite. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he thinks it makes sense to consider a license for a rental <br />unit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that it would give the City a lot more control. <br /> <br />Consensus was to review the rental ordinances at a future work session. <br /> <br />4) Code Enforcement <br /> <br />CommUnity Development Director Frolik stated that the current code enforcement policy, is to <br />not be proactive, but rather reactive. Staff currently enforces the code on a complaint only basis. <br />The procedure is that staff takes the complaint and then inspects the site, if there is a violation a <br />letter is sent giving the property owner 30 days to correct the problem. If the situation is not <br />corrected another letter is sent giving them an additional two weeks and if it is still not corrected <br />it is forwarded to the City Attorney. If a property owner makes progress then the complaint is <br />not forwarded to the City Attorney. Staff would like to see more time focused on the commercial <br />area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that-there had been some talk of a different procedure in <br />Bloomington that was stronger. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that in Bloomington the staff could write <br />tickets for a violation. <br /> <br />City Council/May 6, 2002 <br /> Page 11 of 18 <br /> <br />-43- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.