Loading...
2004-07-20 City Council minutesPage No. 1 July 20, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays:0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 1, 2004. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on June 15, 2004. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items f., j., and k. to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Approved June 9, 2004 Airport Relations Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of the July 13, 2004 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes. 1 c. Acknowledgement of the June 2004 Treasurers Report. Page No. 2 July 20, 2004 d. Acknowledgement of the Fire Department Monthly Report for June. e. Authorization for Sale of 2001 Police Squad. g. Approval of Sign Permit for 2520 Pilot Knob Road. h. Adoption of Ordinance No. 394, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE." i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 20, 2004. j. Approval of the list of claims dated July 20, 2004 and totaling $1,128,371.86. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 N.U.R.T. Councilmember Duggan stated he attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The majority of the discussion was on safety. He asked the Police Chief to check Mn/DOT's record for the last five years regarding any crashes. Crashes that have occurred have been either at Dodd Road and Highway 110 or Delaware and Highway 110. There have been a total of 32 crashes with 11 between Dodd and Delaware. No crashes occurred on the road to the north. He wanted assurance from Mn/DOT that the accident rate and safety factor is minimal. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she would like to see Highway 110 become a boulevard between Delaware and Dodd Road, which would be a great addition to the City and should be taken up with MnDOT. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the proposed letter to Dakota County regarding the North Urban Regional Trail. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CIVIL ENGINEER Councilmember Krebsbach requested a description of credentials of the candidate for the Civil Engineer 11 position. City Engineer McDermott stated that she hired this candidate at the City of Prior Lake two years ago. He has a degree from the University of Mimiesota and has engineering and technician experience with a couple of consulting firms. He has well rounded experience in storm water design, construction inspection and survey work. He is just the person needed for this position. Councilmember Duggan asked if he is a registered engineer. Page No. 3 July 20, 2004 City Engineer McDermott explained that he needs two more years of experience and then will take the registration test. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to appoint Ryan Ruzek as Civil Engineer II at Step B, Grade 28 of the pay matrix, effective August 9. Councilmember Schneeman seconded. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SOMERSET PLANS Mayor Huber opened discussion to the public regarding approval of the plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids for the Somerset neighborhood improvements. No residents were in attendance to discuss the project. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the letter from Mn/DOT has been received to resolve the issues with ponding. Civil Engineer McDermott stated that not all of the Mn/DOT approvals have been received, but the project has been reviewed and the Minnesota State Aid Office has reviewed the plans and has guaranteed approval within the next week. That approval must be received before bids can be opened. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -45, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA REFERRED TO AS SOMERSET NEIGHBORHOOD (JOB NO. 200203, IMPROVEMENT NO. 2004, PROJECT NO. 1) AND SOMERSET COURT (JOB NO. 200218, IMPROVEMENT NO. 2004, PROJECT 3)." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 2003 AUDIT Mr. Tom Hodnefield, HLB Tautges Redpath, stated that the 2003 audit reports have been reviewed in detail with City staff and the Mayor. Three reports have been issued in conjunction with this audit: 1) financial statements that contain all financial statements, footnotes and certain other information, as well as the auditor's report on the financial statements; 2) a report on the checklist of compliance with Minnesota statutes. Three findings are listed in regard to compliance with Minnesota statutes. all of which are considered to be minor. The first and third findings are a result of a new section that the State Auditor added to the required testing of compliance. Page No. 4 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Duggan referred to page 2, Finding 1, and noted a number of references to a requirement of more than two-thirds majority of the Council to adopt the resolution of approval. However, state statute shows adoption by a two - thirds majority. He asked for clarification. Mr. Hodnefield confirmed that the requirement is a two- thirds majority of the Council for adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Duggan referred to page 3, where it is noted that a 2003 certificate could not be located. He asked if this matter has been resolved, how it was resolved and whether this has happened previously in the City. Finance Director Schabacker stated that one broker certification from US Bank could not be located. One was filled out in April 2003, when it should have been done prior to the beginning of the year. All broker certifications are in order for 2004. Mr. Hodnefield informed Council that the third report is the Audit Management Letter, which contains three sections: 1) the audit committee and communications; 2) reportable conditions of internal control; and 3) other matters. The audit committee communications are required when there is a functioning audit committee. That is not the case here, but it is strongly recommended that the auditors provide the communications anyway, and that has been done. Most of it is standard language about the responsibility of accepted auditing standards and significant accounting policies. No transactions were found to be of significance or unusual. Page 3, Accounting Estimates, shows items that are estimated, such as depreciation, fair market value. Such estimates are not highly sensitive for the City. Audit adjustments looked at as a whole could indicate matters the City should be aware o£ The two items discussed with City management are routine adjustments to the general fund balance. It was also found that there were uncorrected financial misstatements. Again, these are routine matters, such as revenue recognition timing. There were no disagreements with management. There were no significant difficulties in completing the audit. The unexpected additional time related to the corrections of the two prior period adjustments. In regard to reportable condition internal control, there is a lack of segregation of duties. This is a common finding. If there were enough staff, duties would be segregated three ways. The City has already begun to address this issue. Cash reconciliation was found to be not timely in reconciliation with the ledger, although the bank statements were reconciled on a timely basis. Account reconciliation relate to prior adjustments that were reported. They have either been corrected or are easily corrected during the current year. The City has not maintained a detailed list of fixed assets. That will take on greater importance with the implementation of GASB34, the reporting model. It is the biggest govermnental accounting change ever. It will be important to plan accordingly. All current accounting will stay in place but will be fund based accounting. Everything will be converted to full accrual accounting. Infrastructure will be counted as capital assets, and depreciation must be shown, a cumbersome process. All streets will be capital assets and long- Page No. 5 July 20, 2004 term debt will be shown on financial statements. Similar to private corporations, an overview is provided, whichwill be a new section of the audit. GASB34 Interpretation No. 6 is in regard to recording of uncompensated absences. The interpretation is they should not be recorded as a liability in the general fund, unless they are paid in the current year due to terminations. This change will increase the general field balance. If the City wishes to fund that liability, it will have the option to do so with an internal service fund. There are a couple of proprietary funds that do not appear to be consistent. With the implementation of GASB34 will be an opportunity to thoroughly review all funds. One other matter is employee expense reimbursements without clear documentation. This involved minor amounts and is considered a minor correction. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the City has the staff and resources to implement GASB34 and whether new software will be needed. Mr. Hodnefield stated that it will be a challenge, but the City's finance personnel have the capability to understand the changes and his firm is available to provide assistance. New software is not necessary, but one to consider might be capital asset software. It is fair to say that there will be a permanent increase of 15% in both time and audit fees to implement GASB34. Finance Director Schabacker stated that no new staff is anticipated to after the implementation of GASB34. Mayor Huber stated that he anticipates staff will make a recommendation for assistance to implement GAS1334. asked if the City will have critical accounting estimates with GASB34. He asked if a section on critical accounting estimates is required with GASB34. Mr. Hodnefield stated that he will get the answer, but if the City has some, they should be commented upon. Mayor Huber thanked Mr. Hodnefield for the thorough review, items brought to the Council's attention and the professional way in which the audit was handled. Case No. 04 -09 MCELLISTREM Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. McEllistrem was granted approval of a twenty foot front yard setback variance in April, 2002 for an addition to his home at 1007 William Court. About six weeks ago the contractor inquired whether it would be possible to apply that variance to a new house. Instead of an addition, the house would be torn down and rebuilt. The City Planner cited two issues: The first is a revision in the zoning ordinance which causes a variance to - expire if not acted upon within one year of approval. This variance was approved in April 2002, and expired in April 2003. The second issue is that the variance received in 2002 was for an addition to an i Page No. 6 July 20, 2004 existing house. Applying it to a new home constitutes a significantly different application, which has not been deliberated by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. McEllistrem referred to the letter he submitted to the Council. Both his adjacent neighbors to the north and south support his request that the variance granted in 2002 would continue as valid at this time. Until now, he was not aware of the time limit for the variance or the distinction of an application for an addition or a new house. Part of the delay is that he donated the house to the Fire Department for training exercises. The Fire Department's original plan was to burn the whole house to the ground. That never happened, and it has been turned back to him. His contractor has applied for a building permit, and he has closed on the construction loan. Plans have been submitted to the City. To go through the process again would mean getting support signatures from neighbors, and reappearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. What is on the site now is a house carcass that is exposed. He would like to move quickly to rebuild. The excavator is ready to begin as soon as possible. Mayor Huber stated that he appreciates the situation, but the Council exposes itself when it makes decisions that vary from procedures. It is no reflection on Mr. McEllistrem or his application. While there may be no risk in this particular situation, it would set a precedent for other applicants to want the same consideration in situations that are more tenuous, which puts the Council in an awkward position. He believes the City must adhere to procedures that are prudent for the City. Councilmember Duggan added that neither the Planning Commission nor the Council have seen the design of the new house. It is difficult to grant a variance for a plan that has not been reviewed. The City needs to review the plan relating to the variance requested. He noted the City Planner's comments that the new home could be built further east or west without the need for a variance. To not do so is the applicant's choice. It is the applicant's preference that is creating the need for a variance, which does not amount to hardship. If no variance were required, a building permit could be granted immediately. If a variance is required, he would want to see the plan and the location of the home in relation to the existing site. Mr. McEllistrem emphasized that the variance he is seeking was already granted in 2002. Page No. 7 July 20, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that he can appreciate changes in life circumstances; it is now way beyond the time frame for implementing the variance. It is right for the City to put the new design through the proper process that after no action for two years will only take another six to eight weeks. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed with Mayor Huber that the time for the variance cannot be extended. What is being proposed is not what the original variance was granted for. Councilmember Duggan noted that there is no guarantee that the variance would be approved. The Council must see the plans and comments of the City Planner. Mayor Huber expressed his appreciation of Mr. McEllistrem's situation, but the Council must adhere to the City's process. It was the consensus of the Council for the new application to move through the regular planning process for approval. Councilmember Duggan suggested Mr. McEllistrem contact his bank immediately to retain the financing in place through the delay imposed by the City. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. McEllistrem could submit his application to the Planning Commission for the August 24, 2004 meeting, and bring it back to the Council for the September 7, 2004 meeting. Case No. 04-13: ALVAREZ Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Robert Alvarez for subdivision and variances for street frontage and front yard setback at 1167 Dodd Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Paul McGinley, the applicant's counsel, were present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister stated that in 1981, the applicant requested the City to vacate right-of-way adjacent to Lot 8, Block 9. The vacation was granted. The minutes for that meeting state, "Councilmember Mertensotto moved the adoption of Resolution No. 81-64, a resolution vacating a portion of partition road right-of-way, approving the vacation of that part of the partition road right-of-way adjacent to Lot 9, Block 8, Kirchner Addition, on the condition that there be no future subdivision of Lots 9 and 10, Block 8. Councilmember Hartman seconded the motion." Approval passed 5 to 0. A few months ago the applicant visited with the City Planner to Page No. 8 July 20, 2004 talk about combining the vacated right -of -way with his property and suggesting a lot line that is closest to his existing house to create an additional buildable lot for a new home. The City Planner reviewed the request and determined that it would require an application for a subdivision and one or more variances for street frontage and front yard setback. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission in May 2004. The Commission recommended denial of the application. Mr. Alvarez requested a postponement from review by the City Council for time to talk to the Ivy Hills Homeowners' Association. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Alvarez has retained Attorney Paul McGinley to represent him in this matter. Assistant Hollister stated that the minutes from the meeting in 1981 indicate the intent to prohibit future subdivision. When the applicant approached the City Planner, staff presumed that those minutes meant to prevent further subdivision on this property. Mr. Alvarez argued a different interpretation that no fawre subdivision could occur crosswise on the property behind the existing house. What he is proposing is to create a buildable lot with a house along side of the existing house, not in back of it. The City Planner identified issues with the proposed house and side lot line setback, as well as the setback for the existing house from the side lot line. Mr. Alvarez has offered to remodel his home to mitigate the variance from the side lot line. Mr. McGinley stated that Mr. Alvarez would be willing to remodel his house to increase the front setback to mitigate the variance situation. Mr. Alvarez attended the Planning Commission meeting but had little understanding of what was being asked by the zoning code, what the circumstances are, and he came to Mr. McGinley to ask for clarification about the issue of the vacation resolution and the issue of future subdivision of the property. Although there was discussion about not being able to subdivide the property in the future, but it was not in the resolution of 1981. The resulting resolution applied to the vacation but not to future subdivision. The Planning Commission minutes from May 2004 stated that the Council is free to grant the subdivision and would like clarification on that issue. Assistant Hollister stated that the minutes from the 1981 meeting indicate an intent to prevent future subdivision, but it is ambiguous. Staff's review of the minutes resulted in an interpretation that no future subdivision was to occur on this property. Mr. Alvarez has a different interpretation that no future subdivision occur crosswise on Page No. 9 July 20, 2004 the back of the property. What is being proposed is to create a buildable lot along side the existing house, not behind it. Councilmember Duggan noted that the language from the minutes is clear that no future subdivision of Lot Nos. 9 and 10 with the granting of the vacation. That language is clear, even though it was not carried into the resolution. City Attorney Schleck stated that the minutes of 1981 can be considered by the Council and taken into account. But that is not the determining factor of granting a variance. A variance is available to someone who shows undue hardship that is not created by the applicants themselves. Mr. McGinley stated that Mr. Alvarez has lived in the City 25 years. When he bought the property, he was told he was buying three buildable lots, Lot Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which are lots of record. He sold Lot No. 11 and now believes he has two buildable lots. When the City vacated the right-of-way, there was a condition that he could not further subdivide beyond the two lots he had left. That is his conception. Mayor Huber questioned whether Mr. Alvarez had three buildable lots prior to the vacation. Mr. Danielson stated that there do not appear to be two buildable lots because the house straddles the property line between Lot Nos. 9 and 10. Councilmember Duggan stated that Lot No. 11 has a width of 70 feet. He asked if this property was grandfathered in as a buildable lot when the City adopted the standard for buildable lots of a width of 100 feet in 1956. Mr. Danielson stated that it would be grandfathered in if it meets the 70% rule. The problem is the house straddling the lot line. Councilmember Duggan asked if Lot 9, with the granting of the additional casement, qualify with a 70-foot frontage. Mr. Danielson stated that it would if it was an existing lot at the time the ordinance was adopted and meets the 70% rule, it would. It would have to be replatted and meet current standards, which means. it does not. City Attorney Schleck clarified that Lot 9 was at a 65-foot width. With the additional easement, it is at 95 feet, it would meet the 70% rule, but it does not meet the requirement for a buildable lot because the vacation occurred in 1981, but the ordinance was adopted in 1956. Page No. 10 July 20, 2004 Mr. McGinley stated that the application is to divide the property into two new lots. The current home would be on a lot with 86 feet of frontage at the setback line. The new lot would have 75.3 feet at the setback line. The application before the Planning Commission had a larger house that encroached on the setback to Ivy Falls Drive and would need a variance to the side street also. The plan was redesigned to eliminate the need for a setback variance, but both lots would need a frontage variance. The lots are oversized with 22,700 square feet and 17,000 square feet in area. Other houses in this block have similar frontage widths. These two lots would be consistent with other lots on Dodd Road. The hardship is that he had bought three buildable lots and sold one. If approved, access to Ivy Hills Drive from the side street. Mayor Huber opened discussion to public conu-nent. Mr. Alvarez stated that before he bought the lots, he asked the City if they were buildable. City planning staff told him numerous times the lots are buildable. Now he is being told there is not enough frontage. He pays taxes on three separate lots of record. Councilmember Schneeman stated the 1981 minutes are clear that there would be no future subdivision of the property. Also, there were a number of people from the Ivy Falls neighborhood at the 1981 meeting who gave input and it is their understanding there would be no future subdivision. Councilmember Duggan suggested a plan that would create a buildable lot. From the back line of the Property forward 112 feet would provide a lot of 15,000 square feet, which is the City requirement without the easement. There would be street access to Ivy Hills with the purchase of a small piece of land from Ivy Hills. The deck and existing home would meet the setback requirement facing Ivy Hills Drive. This is not the same proposal, but it is a workable model that does not require variances. If this would be agreeable to Mr. Alvarez, he would support this plan with the appropriate application process. Mayor Huber stated that he also believes the 1981 decision is clear about no future subdivision, and he is not inclined to overturn that. Mr. Alvarez stated that what the Council was discussing in 1981 was not to create three lots out of two. He told the Council at the time that he had no intention of doing that. It was understood the second lot is buildable. He further stated that he does not believe he would Page No. 11 July 20, 2004 be able to purchase the required piece of property from Ivy Hills to make Councilmember Duggan's plan work. It would take 100% approval of Ivy Hills residents for him to be able to make that purchase. Councilmember Duggan stated that it was his understanding the property may be for sale. Mr. Alvarez stated again that City staff have repeatedly told him the property would be buildable. His lot is platted and he does not understand why now it is not buildable. The Council in 1981 understood that he would not give up a buildable lot for the vacation of 30 feet of right -of -way. He would never do that. He was told there would be no problem putting a driveway in that would access off Ivy Hills Road because the Council did not want more traffic on Dodd Road. Mr. McGinley stated that one of the things Mr. Alvarez was told that if his house did not encroach on Lot 9, even if it was almost to the property line, he would have two buildable lots. That is why he has contacted architects to remodel and remove that portion of his home that crosses the property line of record. It would require a variance for a setback of 8.4 feet instead of the required 10 feet. A deed covenant would be placed on the vacant parcel so there would always be 20 feet between the two homes. Mayor Huber noted from the 1981 minutes that Mr. Alvarez stated he would like to put in a driveway from Ivy Hills Road and construct a detached garage in front, which would not be possible without the vacation right -of -way. This reinforces to him that the Council understood that with a driveway and garage, there would not be a further request for another building site. Mr. Alvarez again stated that what the Council meant was that he could not divide the back of his property for a buildable lot. He would never have given up a buildable lot that he already had. Lot 9 was platted and the Council knew that. Councilmember Krebsbach noted that the driveway would cross the lot Mr. Alvarez states is buildable. Mr. Alvarez responded that he never wanted to give up his lot and could take the driveway out and build on it. The Council understood that. Councilmember Krebsbach asked for clarification whether Lot 9 meets the frontage standard for a buildable lot. City Attorney Schleck stated that prior to the requirement for 100 feet of frontage for a lot, the three lots that Mr. Alvarez owns were platted. Page No. 12 July 20, 2004 Following the requirement for 100 feet of frontage, the City allowed lots to be grandfathered in that met the 70% rule to be buildable lots based on frontage requirements. Lot Nos. 10 and 11 met the requirements, but Lot 9 did not. In 1981, when the right-of-way was vacated, additional frontage was added to Lot 9. It appears that the frontage of Lot 9 after the vacation was still less than 100 feet. On Ivy Hills Drive following the vacation, Lot 9 had 117 feet of frontage. The problem is that the existing house encroaches on Lot 9. However, in order to reconfigure the house, the applicant still needs to get a variance because the existing house would still not meet the side yard setback requirements. It appears the proposed home would meet the rear yard setback requirement. The problem is that the existing house straddles the lot line. If that were not true, he believes Lot 9 would be a buildable lot. Mr. McGinley stated that if the rear of the proposed house is determined to be Ivy Hills Drive, it would not meet the required 30- foot rear setback. It would only be 26 feet. No action is requested for possible options. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 04- 47, "RESOLUTION DENYING A SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES FOR STREET FRONTAGE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1167 DODD ROAD BASED ON THE COMPLEXITY, NOT MEETING THE FRONTAGE TEST FOR THE STANDARD ADOPTED IN 1956 OR WITH THE VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN 1981, AND BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE REPRESENTATION IN 1981 WAS THAT THE VACATION WOULD BE FOR A GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY AND THE NOTATION THAT THE LOT WOULD NOT BE SPLIT." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Discussion: Councilmember Duggan asked when Mr. Alvarez's existing home was built. Mr. Alvarez answered, 1953. The only thing ever added to it is a deck. Councilmember Duggan stated that he plans to contact the former Councilmembers from 1981 to see if they remember the application in the same way as Mr. Alvarez. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 13 July 20, 2004 Mr. McGinley stated that if the City sees the 1981 resolution as clear- cut, nothing further can be done. However, Mr. Alvarez is willing to consider options and is willing to drastically reconfigure his home. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she referred to the 1981 resolution in her motion. Councilmember Duggan expressed appreciation of City Attorney Schleck's comments and that the Council can consider the 1981 resolution however this Council sees fit. He would be willing to work to find a way to build. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Lot 9 is buildable. City Attorney Schleck responded that there are a number of issues that would have to be resolved. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he believes Lot 9 is a buildable lot if the side yard setback of the existing home is resolved. City Attorney Schleck agreed that if there were no other structure on Lot 9 at this time, something could be built on it. Any application that is submitted will be reviewed in light of current zoning ordinance regulations. Any variance must demonstrate undue hardship not caused by the applicant himself. Mayor Huber suggested Mr. Alvarez meeting with staff to see what might be worked out. 170-MM-11M WORKSHOP It was the consensus of the Council to tentatively schedule the 2005 budget workshop for Monday, August 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. Councilmembers will confirm this time with City Administrator Danielson in the next week. COUNCIL COMMENTS Airport: Councilmember Vitelli stated that he has great disappointment in NOC. The cities' proposal was never mentioned. While Mendota Heights is not greatly impacted, it was a good proposal for surrounding cities like Eagan, Richfield, Minneapolis and Bloomington. The MAC proposal is so far from the cities' proposal. It was clear that the $115 million is in the MAC plan and has been since 1996. Now they are saying they can only come up with $31 million. The City's representative to MAC, Mr. Foley, has never contacted him to discuss the finding. He is very disappointed. Page No. 14 July 20, 2004 Councilmember Duggan asked if there is discussion about joining the lawsuits coming out of Minneapolis. Councilmember Vitelli answered that has not been discussed. It is his understanding that because of the lawsuit, the north/south runway cannot be opened until the issue is settled. Councilmember Kiebsbach stated that MAC and Northwest Airlines have this entire issue focused on abatement of noise to homes. There is no discussion about abating the noise of aircraft, the corridors they fly in, the time of day they fly. While she can understand the need for abatement for homes, the noise has grown to the point of taking parkland because the lake areas and parks in South Minneapolis are greatly affected. There is a taking of tranquility in the area. Northwest is able to fly older aircraft at will. MAC has done a good job of building retail and putting in a $30 million ramp, but the issue is about air travel. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is also disappointed because NOC (Noise Oversight Committee) has not met for three months. The reason is that the representative from Northwest Airlines will not agree to an agenda and is blocking meetings. Northwest Airlines continues to disregard neighborhoods around the airport. Mayor Huber stated that $3 billion is being spent on the airport, but they cannot find $100 million to help people who are impacted. Secondly, the argument is made about the bad economy, but if the economy were booming, Northwest Airlines and MAC would be proposing to insulate more homes. Councilmember Duggan noted that the cost of the home insulation program is assessed to each airport passenger. It is not being done with state or federal money and is not an economic problem. That is a false argument. Air traffic is now back to pre 9/11 numbers. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the issues are further complicated by the fact that Northwest would rather see the money MAC has for home insulation used for projects that Northwest is interested in. Home Signage: Councilmember Schneeman requested that the newsletter remind residents to put number signage on their homes. It is very difficult to fmd homes in Mendota Heights. Page No. 15 July 20, 2004 City Tour: Councilmember Duggan suggested the Council take a City tour. The Planning Commission has been working on a nuisance ordinance. It is important for the Council to determine what is acceptable, and it would be good for the Council to see and discuss what is agreed upon regarding property maintenance and what the City should be. This stems from several neighbors complaining about other neighbors not maintaining property. Election: Councilmember Krebsbach announced that she will be seeking re- election to her Council seat. Mayor Huber announced he would also be running for re-election. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on August 3 for a joint Council/ARC workshop. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:31 p.m. Kathle 'VSWanson City"650'ic 01111a" John J. Mayor