Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 27, 2008 <br />utilized, the person would pay the appropriate fine, but the violation would <br />be held for a period of six months. If no similar violations occur, the <br />ticket is then dismissed and does not show up on the person's driving <br />record. <br />The City Attorney also explained the financial impact of this option, <br />noting that more fine revenue goes to the State and the City than under <br />standard court processing. <br />Blesener asked how many other cities use this option. The City Attorney <br />indicated that the vast majority of cities utilize the "Continue for <br />Dismissal" option. <br />Keis noted discussions in the Legislature relative to administrative fines <br />and asked how legislation may impact this option. The Attorney indicated <br />that the CFD is a separate court administers process from administrative <br />fines which would be charged directly by the City. <br />McGraw asked which petty misdemeanors would fall under this process. <br />The Attorney was unsure, but suggested that they were related to driving <br />offences. <br />Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2008-2-56 -AUTHORIZING THE CITY <br />ADMINISTRATOR TO NOTIFY THE COURT THAT THE CITY OF <br />LITTLE CANADA WILL UTILIZE THE "CONTINUE FOR <br />DISMISSAL" OPTIONAT THE DESCRETION OF THE CITY <br />ATTORNEY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Allan. <br />Ayes (5). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />SINGLE- The City Planner reviewed in detail the draft changes to the Single- <br />FAMILY Family Residential District (R-1). He noted that the changes include <br />RESIDENTIAL the limitation of 35% impervious surface coverage, including some <br />DISTRICT language suggested by the City Engineer for measuring impervious <br />AMENDMENTS surface. He also noted that the 35% coverage limitation can be exceeded <br />through an administrative permit process provided that certain conditions <br />are met as outlined in the ordinance. <br />The Planner indicated that with regard to tree preservation standards, the <br />City Engineer has agreed that the 30% tree crown cover requirement is <br />reasonable. The Engineer recommended, however, that financial <br />9 <br />