12/13/1971 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

135 12/13/71 The Clerk reminded the Council of the question on Sign Permit Di which had not yet been reissued to Brede, Inc. because of the access through the freeway fence to inspect the sign. A document of lis pendens was received, but Mr. Locher had advised that this was insufficient; this bad been sent back with a letter in May, and nothing had been heard from them since. After discussion, Mr. Cardinal moved to send a letter to Brede Inc. giving them 30 days to provide specific evidence of any legal access to the sign location, or else the sign permit will be cancelled. Seconded by Mr. Rosengren. Carried unanimously. Mr. Cardinal moved to reserve the Village Hall on February 22, 1972 for the DFL caucus per the request of Chick Jester. Seconded by Mr. Rosengren. Carried unanimously. The Clerk reported getting a call from Mrs. Clem Frazer regarding the mess at the Bruder place next door, which still hasn't been cleaned up. It was noted . that the case had bean taken to court a couple of times. Mr. Locher stated that he had requested that it be placed on the court calendar again, that he had talked with Mr. Astrup about it, and that Mr. Astrup will take another look. The last time Mr. Astrup was there he had reported that it was about 85% cleaned up but apparently they slid back again since. The Clerk asked the Council if they felt that an inspection fee for church signs should be charged since we charge no sign fee. Mr. Bohjanen felt that the churches keep up their properties pretty good and it wasn't important to watch them. If anything shout happen, we could check it out. Mt. L'Allier wished the record to show that unless there are some objections that at the present time we feel there is no need for any charge. Mr. Locher stated that we wouldn't be discriminating if we definitely feel they need no inspection, but it's a question of whether they do or not. We inspect them for 2 purposes: safety and esthetics. The Clerk stated that she had compiled a list of ordinances to go in the new building code as follows: Ordinances No. 6, 6E, 6 -0, 6Q, 21, 21A, 21B, 210, 22, 30A, 30B, 39, 39A, 52 and 53, and asked if this met approval. lair. Bohjanen asked how many code books we had sold in the past year; the Clerk thought about 3 dozen. Mr. Bohjanen felt that maybe the code on plastic pipe should be waited on before printing them up. Mr. Locher stated that he had talked with Daniel Klaus, Attorney for the City of St. Paul, and had been told that St. Paul was not happy with the Attorney General's Opinion or with the Legislature. They are not overly opposed to plastic pipe, but they are opposed to the fact that the plumbing code does not set any standards for plastic pipes. He thinks that the plumbing industry will discourage the use of plastic pipes and that you'll only find them in low -cost housing, or where somebody wants to save $30 -40. St. Paul is not going to challenge it; they do not plan to amend their ordinance, but to let the State code prevail. Mr. L'Allier commented that he didn't know about St. Paul, but that in some other areas there are a lot of expensive homes being built with plastic pipe. He couldn't say that he's an advocate of plastic pipe necessarily, but if the City of St. Paul is not going to challenge it, I don't know how we can. Mr. Locher wouldn't recommend challenging it. There was considerable discussion. Mr. Locher noted that we can recommend on the plastic pipe but that we couldn't require it or force it. Don Marier noted that we can't discriminate on it, but he didn't believe that the State has finalized what the code will be; its still pending; they will revise the section of the Plumbing Code on the plastic pipe, probably this week. The Clerk noted that she had bean out of code books for about 3 weeks. Mr. Jaworski moved to have the Clerk make photocopies of the above listed ordinances to make up a couple of dozen code books. Seconded by Mr. Cardinal. Carried unan.