Loading...
PRE 2010 DOCSTHE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -OF JULY 12, 1971 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kirkham led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INVOCATION: A Representative from the Ministerial Association offered the Invocation. Mayor Kirkham called the Regular Council Meeting of July 12, 1971 to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Kelshaw, Kirkham, Liebl, Harris, Breider MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1971: MOTION by Councilman Liebl to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 21, 1971 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Braider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Kirkham said there was one item to add as follows: Receiving Bids and Awarding Contract for Irrigation System for Commons Park and Civic Center. MOTION by Councilman Harris to adopt the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilman Liebl. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. VISITORS: Mr. Robert Astrup, 6640 McKinley Street N.E.: Erection of Fence in Alley: Ids. Astrup said he was here at the request of Jim Gibbs who came out to his house last week. His problem concerns the erection of a fence between his and his neighbors property in the alley. The erection of the fence would cause obout 6 trees to be lost. He has requested his neighbor to move his fence about V to A' to save the treses, but he has refused to do this. Since this is City property, and City trees, he would request that the City look into the placement of the fence. There was also a problem about 5 years ago when the man Who owned the house blasted off the property; and exposed the soots of about 4 100 year old oak tree. He was afraid it woul4 die and he and his wife h4uled dirt to cover the roots and sodded. He felt this would beautify the ,areas and prevent erosion. Because of the unwillingness of his neighbor to cooperate, between 4 and 6 trees will be destroyed, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 12, 1971 MAGE 2 Mayor Kirkham asked if this fence would be on City property. The City Engineer said that this is just -north of 66th Avenue between Fridley and McKinley Streets. The alley is 12'. Copncilman Harris asked what was the man's reason for not moving the fence. The City spends a certain amount of money each year for City beautification and he would hate to see them taken down. The City Engineer said that the City does not maintain the alley. in areas where the alley is not open the people do fence. This seems to be a neighbor- hood problem and is a matter of two neighbors getting together in the location of the fence, It is difficult for the City to dictate, Mrs. Harold Lunning, 6655 Fridley Street N.E., said that Mr. Astrup talks of beautifying the area, but you should see it. He has said that he hoped the tree would fall on his garage. Mr. Lunning said that he has not touched the fence as yet. Before he -did anything, he contacted the City Engineer and City Attorney. He said he understood the alley is not vacated. He would like to put up the fence because there is a lot of foot traffic. The City Attorney said that Mr. Astrup came in to see him and had a survey on which it appeared the alley had been vacated. He wants to construct a fence In the center of the alley. The City Attorney said that he had no knowledge whether the alley had been vacated or not, but if it was'vacated, he would have every right to ppnstruct the fence. It appears since talking to him that the alley is not vacated, so it is a matter for Council control as it is a platted alley. The City Engineer said that he has suggested vacating the alley, however, an easement would have to be retained for power lines. The City has allowed fencing in alleys such as this. Access is not needed for any garacjeo. Councilman Kelshaw asked why the fence could not be moved to save the trees, Mr. Lunning said that if he sold his property, he would want to get his fair share for the property. The City Attorney said that fences are not used to dete=ine the lot lines. Mr. Astrup said that he was not trying to deprive him o any property. Mayor Kirkham said that this matter could be put on the Agenda for next week and in the meantime, his Ward Coux%cilman can research the matter. Mr. Lunning said that Mr. Astrup has a dog that runs loose all day. He was told to Call City Hall. and file a complaint. A neighbor said that he lives behind M6'. Astrup and there "a no reason the fence could not be run straight across and he was in agreement with Mr. Astrup. Mr. Astrup said that as to his saying that he hoped the tree would fall on his garage, he said it lightly and`in the sense that he needed a new garage. . pouglats Osieeza_A, 101 owx Road: Tree Damage Mr, Asi.eczanek showed the Council A copy of a release that he was nested to sign when he received the $47.50 for the damage to his trees. it stipu- lated that he was not to be remunerated for any further damage to his trees, go said that was not the way be understood the conversation. (,Tune 7, 1971) He said he was not about to sign such a statement and would like to hear the tape played back. He believed the CouAci.l said that they would approve Pay - pent of the claim as long as his replacements were not close to the curb. The way this release is statod, he would have to replant the existing trees. I 'I '=�' unroF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 May 29, 1991 Guy Bloomquist 6640 McKinley Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: First Notice of Noncompliance at 6640 McKinley Street N.E. Dear Mr. Bloomquist: The City of Fridley has established a City Code for the purpose of promoting a pleasant and attractive suburban environment. A recent inspection of the property at 6640 McKinley Street N.E. revealed that not all Code requirements are presently being met. Listed below is an item which does not comply with the City Code: 1. Repair, replace, or remove fence along west side of property. Your prompt attention in correcting this situation would greatly assist us in helping make Fridley a better place to live. An inspection will be conducted on or about June 17, 1991, to determine compliance. If you have questions or would like to discuss this, please contact me at 572-3595. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, Steven Barg Code Enforcement Officer SB:ls CE -91-144 CI7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 June 24, 1991 Guy Bloomquist 6640 McKinley Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Final Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 6640 McKinley Street N.E. -- Dear Mr. Bloomquist: On June 24, 1991, a second inspection of the property at 6640 McKinley Street N.E. confirmed that the following item still does not comply with City Code: 1. Repair, replace, or remove fence along west side of property. A final inspection to determine compliance will be conducted on or about July 8, 1991. You should arrange to complete an approved plan for compliance before that date. Should this inspection confirm that this deficiency still exists, legal action will be approved. If corrective action cannot be completed by this time, contact me to coordinate a schedule to complete this requirement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the Fridley Municipal Center, 572-3595. Sincerely, Steven Barg Code Enforcement Officer SB:ls CE -91-251 G7YOF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287 September 17, 1991 Guy Bloomquist 6640 McKinley Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Fence in Disrepair Dear Mr. Bloomquist: Earlier this summer, I wrote to you requesting that urepair, replace, or remove a fence located near your west property At that time, it appeared to me that this fence was located on your you informed me that this fence was property. Subsequently, actually not on your property. Since that time, I have researched this matter further. This fence is located within a 12 -foot strip of land which was dedicated as City right-of-way when the development was platted. However, the City only maintains the right to locate an alley on this property Y in the future; it does not have any responsibility for maintenance of this property until an alley is actually established. Until such time as an alley is constructed at this location, each property owner may use that half of the 12 -foot strip abutting his/her property. In accordance with this, each property owner is also responsible for maintenance of his/her half of this property. The City's Public Works Department inspected the site and determined the exact location of the 12 -foot strip of land in question. That portion of the fence which ii wars epait abuts ir lies within the easterly six feet of the City right-of-way your property. Therefore, maintenance of the fence would be your responsibility. I am requesting that you take one of the following actions by no later than October 4, 1991: 1, Repair, remove, or replace those sections of the fence which are in disrepair. Guy Bloomquist September 17, 1991 Page 2 2. Submit a vacation application (with a non-refundable fee of $150) requesting that the City formally vacate this alley right-of-way. This would result in an -additional six feet each being deeded to you and your neighbor to the west. (I have enclosed a vacation application form should you wish to pursue this option.) I realize this is a complex issue and that or concerns. Please feel free to call me to discuss this further. Thanks for your Sincerely, Steven Barg Planning Assistant SB:ls CE -91-432 you may have questions at 572-3595 if you wish cooperation!