Loading...
2000-09-05 City Council minutesPage No. I September 5, 2000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 5, 2000 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. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Dwyer, Huber, Krebsbach and Schneeman. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 18, 2000. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Dwyer moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 1, 2000. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Huber moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 15, 2000. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Coancilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item j, NDC4 Joint Powers Agreement, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 9, 2000 Airport Relations Commission meeting. Page No. 2 September 5, 2000 b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 22, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for August. d. Acknowledgment of a report regarding the Linders Greenhouses 2000 season at Mendota Plaza. e. Acknowledgment of a memo regarding use of the City Hall parking lot as the site for a non-profit car wash and confirmation that use of City Hall facilities for any commercial purpose is not appropriate. f. Acknowledgment of a draft antenna ordinance amendment and direction to schedule a public hearing on the September Planning Commission agenda. g. Approval of the Metricom Right-of-Way Agreement and authorization for its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. h. Authorization for the issuance of a sign permit for a two sided 8 foot wide by 4 foot high sign to Farris Incentives. i. Approval of a minor amendment to the Mendota Meadows PUD to allow construction of a three-season porch addition at 778 Monet Court. j. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-71 , "RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET." k. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-72, "RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE 2000 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2001." 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-73, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2000 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. I COLLECTIBLE IN 200 L" in. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-74, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE YEAR 2000 STREET RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION PROJECT AND SURROUNDING AREA IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 2000, PROJECT NO. 1)." Page No. 3 September 5, 2000 n. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-75, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL TO SERVE THE AREA REFERRED TO AS AUGUSTA SHORES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 2000, PROJECT NO. 4)." o. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-76, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL TO SERVE THE AREA REFERRED TO AS ALICE LANE SUBDIVISION TWO (IMPROVEMENT NO. 2000, PROJECT NO. 3)." p. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated September 15, 2000. q. Approval of the List of Claims dated September 15, 2000 and totaling $411,768.75. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Council acknowledged and briefly discussed the final draft of the NDC4 Joint Powers Agreement. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 70, "RESOLUTION APPROVING JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00-32, TUMINELLY Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Carmen Tuminelly for replatting of the Carmen Court Addition to provide for the division of Lot 2, Block 1 into two parcels, along with lot width variances. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Tuminelly and Mr. Peter Coyle were present for the discussion. Mr. Coyle informed Council that the neighborhood is united in its support for the application. The plat was created in 1996 and was replatted in 1997 to create Lots 4 and 5. One of the existing lots has a long extended driveway similar to what is before Council. The division of existing Lot 2 as proposed is for one lot of 17,000 square feet (easterly lot) and another of 30,000 square feet (westerly lot). The westerly lot is enlarged by Mr. Tuminelly's acquisition of former Mn/DOT right-of-way. The issues raised by the Planning Page No. 4 September 5, 2000 Commission were whether the length of the drive is appropriate, but the drive was already approved in the 1997 replat. The second issue was the inability of the property owner to achieve 100 feet of width at the 30 foot setback line. Both of the lots satisfy the requirement at the building line but not at the 30 foot setback line. When the project was approved in 1997, two of the lots did not satisfy that requirement but the replat was approved. Mayor Mertensotto asked what differentiates this application from a lot split. Mr. Coyle responded that Mr. Tuminelly needs to incorporate the Mn/DOT property into the plat. Otherwise a lot split would have been appropriate. Mayor Mertensotto asked how the lots would be served with utilities. Mr. Tuminelly responded that the sewer is on the back of the property and that he installed the sewer line to serve this property. He showed Council where the water line is and stated that he has permission from St. Paul Water to connect to the line. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the sanitary sewer line is deep enough to provide gravity flow. Mr. Tuminelly responded that it is and that he has reviewed the matter with city engineering. Interim Administrator Danielson stated that Mr. Tuminelly's home is connected to the sewer line and that sewer was installed to serve his property. Staff would need to make sure the line is enclosed within the easement. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the homes can be served without a force main. Mr. Tuminelly responded that he will verify with city staff that it can be served without a force main. Councihnember Dwyer stated that council must address whether there is a hardship under the ordinance in terms of the lot widths. Mr. Coyle responded that the lot width issue is a policy question that Council must answer. This property has been marketed as a single Page No. 5 September 5, 2000 lot and there has been no interest. One reason for the lack of interest is that there is too much land. Also, this is an odd shaped piece of property and it is difficult to satisfy the city's requirements in this area of the city. In Crown Point there are possibly many lots that do not have 100 feet at the setback. He suggested that this is a fair use of the property and there is a hardship because of the way the plat was approved in 1997. He stated that he believes the variances and the lot split are necessary to market the property. Also, the neighborhood would like to have this done so that the development is final. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he remembers the Planning Commission discussions from 1996, and there was a concern expressed by the people on the frontage road about the number of lots that might develop. He felt that if Council allows the replat to occur, it will be going contrary to the wishes of the people who were part of the dialogue four years ago. Mr. Coyle stated that there will be one more lot than what was approved, but the original plat did not envision the two lots created in 1997. The frontage road serves a residential neighborhood, and while there would be an increase in traffic he did not believe the impact of one additional lot would be a significant impact. Moreover, the people in the neighborhood support the proposal. Councilmember Krebsbach recalled that the original proposal was for multi-family development consisting of 12 townhouses and there was significant neighborhood opposition and much discussion about the impact from traffic from multiple family development. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are many lots in the city that do not have 100 feet of frontage but they do have 100 feet at the setback line. He pointed out that this is an isolated neighborhood, the lot sizes are much larger than required, and the density is well below standard residential developments. One additional house would not be inappropriate as long as 100 feet of frontage can be achieved at the building setback. He stated that he cannot see how one additional house would be an additional traffic burden on the frontage road. His concern is whether the lots can be served by gravity flow (sanitary sewer). He stated that the 17,000 square foot lot is much smaller than the others in the plat and suggested that the lot could be enhanced by moving the lot line on the larger lot at least another ten feet closer to the proposed building pad. That would bring the smaller lot up to 18,500 square feet. He informed Mr. T-Luninelly that the barn that exists on the proposed westerly lot must Page No. 6 September 5, 2000 be taken out. He pointed out that this is an isolated subdivision that is not connected to any other subdivision and no further lot division can occur. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he believes four years ago Council said there could be no further subdivision. He did not see a hardship and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial. Mr. John Heinz, 907 Carmen Lane, stated that he would not be living in the development if accommodations had not been made in the plat. He stated that he plans to live in his home for a very long time, which is one of the reasons Council received a letter from all three of the neighbors who live on Carmen Lane. He and his neighbors are anxious to see the completion of the development. He invited Council to walk the property with any of the neighbors and see what the completion of the development would add to this neighborhood and the city as a whole. He invited Council to walk down Carmen Lane at any given time and see the number of cars that are parked in the approach to the area. He stated that his neighbor's children play in the cul-de-sac and he is not worried by the increase in traffic. He stated that if the proposal is approved he would benefit as a resident of the city and the city would benefit. He has already benefited because if it were not for the allowances made four years ago for this development, he would not be living in Mendota Heights. Mayor Mertensotto asked about the impact of air noise on the development. Mr. Heinz responded that it is quiet in this development, perhaps because of the way the houses were constructed but also the way the neighborhood lots are configured. He stated that he lived in South Minneapolis before this and he could not talk on the phone when a plane came over. He stated that if someone came to him with a petition about air noise he would not sign it. He stated that he knew the airport existed and the freeway existed when he bought his property. He further stated that if the discussion were over several lots he would oppose it, but one lot is not a problem. Mr. John Traxler stated that he purchased the existing house on Lot 1. He informed Council that he attended the Planning Commission meeting and the issue of noise came up. He stated that this past weekend he and his children spent the night in a tent and the noise is not a problem, at least not in his back yard. The number one item he wanted to bring up to Council is that when he bought his lot it was Page No. 7 September 5, 2000 with the understanding there would be development to the west of his house. He has been waiting for that to happen. He appreciates the opportunity of having Mr. Tuminelly and his wife and Mr. Heinz and his family as neighbors and views this as an opportunity for another neighbor. He stated that he has been driving past this lot for several years and always wondered who would develop it. Now he is here to ask Council to let the development be finished. If it is not done now, it would just prolong doing something with the property. He stated that his lot is the closest lot to the property that will be divided. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the neighbors on the cul-de-sac behind Carmen Court have been informed on the proposed replat. Mr. Tuminelly responded that they were notified. He further stated that the discussion in 1996 was none of his doing. The first proposal for development (multi-family) was by John Mathem, and Mr. Tuminelly had no part in that proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that traffic was a real concern for the neighbors on the frontage road. Also, the complaints from Eagle Ridge about the noise from the freeway were a concern. Council does not take an action because adjoining neighbors approve it, but rather, Council has rules to follow. In this case, the lot widths are not standard, but this is not a normal subdivision. If the development can meet the requirement for 100 feet at the setback he could see no reason to deny it. Councilmember Huber noted that staff had provided Council with the minutes of the Planning Commission and Council meetings from 1996 and 1997 to assist in the decision making process. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that those minutes speak against the twelve unit development that had originally been proposed. Mr. Heinz stated that he would also speak against such a proposal but is pleased to support the current proposal and completion of the neighborhood. Councilmember Schneeman stated that her only concern was the length of the driveway. She asked what the Fire Chief says about the driveway length. Mayor Mertensotto responded that there is a 500 foot driveway length limitation. Page No. 8 September 5, 2000 Mr. Coyle stated that the driveway is about 190 feet and it was actually approved in 1997. Councilmember Huber stated that he is sensitive to Councilmember Dwyer's comments about neighborhood concerns in 1996 and 1997. The original proposal was for ten townhomes. Then a proposal for eight single family lots was discussed. The latter was a proposal by Mr. Tuminelly and Mr. Mathern. The discussion eventually went to five lots, which is as the development now stands. The question is, if Council had a proposal for six lots at that time, would it have been approved. He was sensitive to Councilmember Dwyer's comments that Council came to a conclusion and now would be changing their minds. Council may have accepted this proposal for six lots in 1997. When the subdivision was approved, five to six lots seemed to be a decent proposal to approve. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the discussion by Council in April, 1997 was that the neighborhood would prefer six lots over the eight lots, and the development ended up being five lots. She stated that if the proposal is approved, Mr. Traxler would have a house behind him. There was discussion at one time about five to six lots and now the additional Mn/DOT property has been added. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would like the lot line to move to increase the size of the smaller lot by taking an additional ten feet to its northwest. It would then be closer to the size of the other lots. Also, Council does not want a force main for sanitary sewer. Coimcilmember Schneeman moved to approve the preliminary plat with the following findings with respect to hardship: the configuration of the land; the replat is within its own "community;" the lot sizes exceed the minimum required size; and, 6,000 square feet of land will be added to the property through the right -of -way acquisition from Mn/DOT; approval being subject to the following conditions: 1) that the westerly line of the easterly lot be extended to the west at least ten feet; 2) that the driveway in the location that was approved in the existing plat; 3) that the street entrance can be shared but each owner must have his own access to the entrance; 4) verification by city engineering that a force main is not required; 5) that the utility easements be shown on the plat; 6) that approval is contingent on Mn/DOT approval. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes:4 Nays: 1 Dwyer Page No. 9 September 5, 2000 Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Tuminelly to provide information on the landscape screening when Council considers the final plat. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developers agreement will have to address the park contribution, SAC and WAC, and other issues. CASE NO. 00-33, CASHILL Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Mike Cashill for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure to replace an existing shed at the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Alan Spalding was present on behalf of Par 3. Mr. Spalding stated that the existing 1,200 square foot maintenance shed would be demolished and replaced with a 2,600 square foot maintenance building. The 15 foot tall building will be screened by a slope and will be on the same grade as the existing shed. The hillside going to the east is substantial, and the existing building is built five feet into the hill and its roof can barely be seen from the clubhouse. The roof can be seen from Bachelor. From the southeast and south, the building can barely be seen. There are significant woods to the north and the northeast. He stated that he is not sure whether the building exterior will be cedar siding or vinyl. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council required Mendakota Country Club to dress up its maintenance structure. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. Spaulding plans to bring sewer and water to the facility. Mr. Spaulding responded that he is researching the cost and if it is not prohibitive, Par 3 would like to put a toilet in the building for staff and not for patrons of the golf course. He also stated that he will put some distance between the exterior portable bathroom and the slab for the soda machine. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the trash containers must be screened by a fence. Mr. Spaulding responded that Par 3 plans to screen the containers with a cedar fence. Page No. 10 September 5, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto felt that the driveway should be blacktop all the way from Bachelor because dust from a gravel driveway would impact the neighborhood. Mr. Spaulding responded that the use of the driveway will not change and the activity will be the same. He stated that other golf courses nearby have substantial amounts of gravel. Mayor Mertensotto noted that other golf courses are not asking for new structures. He pointed out that the blacktop would not need to be more than eight to ten feet wide. Mr. Spaulding stated that gravel is natural looking and several of the neighbors have expressed interest in maintaining the gravel surface. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the Planning Commission discussed that dust is an issue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Par 3 should build something that is attractive and that landscaping should be something more than just lilacs. He informed Mr. Spaulding that the landscaping plan must be approved by the city. He stated that Council's interest is to satisfy all of the concerns of the people in the neighborhoods near the golf course. Councilmember Huber stated that he could go either way with respect to blacktopping the driveway but would like the exterior of the structure upgraded to cedar. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the neighbors to the west complained, which is why the Planning Commission wanted the first fifteen feet of the driveway blacktopped. He did not feel just fifteen feet of blacktop is adequate and also informed Mr. Spaulding that there cannot be any outside storage. Mr. Spaulding responded that Par 3 wants to expand its facility so there is no outside storage. He stated that traffic flow of the maintenance vehicles goes away from the facility in several directions but does not go towards Bachelor. The maintenance people park their cars next to the maintenance shed. He stated that he was going to propose blacktop for 20 to 30 feet because 15 feet is not a very large apron from the road. Page No. 11 September 5, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Spaulding what the length of the drive is from Bachelor Avenue to the shed and what vehicles use that drive. Mr. Spaulding responded that the driveway is about 200 feet long and that three maintenance people use the drive. Two of them go in in the morning, park their cars there and go out with maintenance equipment throughout the day. He stated that the maintenance people are not using much of the gravel road with maintenance equipment. Mayor Mertensotto asked about rubbish haulers and other service vehicles. Mr. Spaulding responded that if it is an issue with the neighbors he would be willing to consider blacktopping the entire driveway but that it would be a bigger benefit to the golf course to keep it gravel. Mr. George Vadis, 758 Bachelor, stated that his home is on the southern side of the golf course. He informed Council that he was not aware the structure would be fifteen feet tall, and that is a concern. He further stated that he would prefer that the siding be natural and that at least fifteen feet of the driveway length be blacktopped because dust does occur. He asked Council to place two conditions on approval — that the facility fit architecturally in the neighborhood and that the noise level respect the nuisance times. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Par 3 does not have a rendering of the building and that the Council should have more than what has been presented as an application. Mr. Spaulding responded that the drawings before Council are preliminary and if he gets preliminary approval he will contract with someone to prepare drawings. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council can give concept approval but will not give formal approval on anything without knowing what the facility will look like. Mr. Spaulding responded that his first proposal was for a vinyl exterior but that he will use cedar siding. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council could approve a conditional use permit but that Mr. Spaulding would have to meet Council's requirements and agree to those requirements in writing. Page No. 12 September 5, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer stated that the conditions should be: that the exterior treatment be cedar siding; that the entire drive must be asphalt given the vehicles that will be using it (employees and deliveries, etc.); and that landscaping be of the highest quality. He pointed out that while Par 3 will not be enlarging the driveway, they will be increasing the size of the facility and its use. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she remembers the gravel driveway from when she has played the course and it is relaxing. If the driveway cannot hold the additional weight the traffic generated by the new facility, she would support the requirement for blacktop. Mr. Spaulding responded that the driveway will serve the same uses as the existing building. He asked if he can take a poll of the residents along Bachelor Avenue. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the city has already heard from the neighbors. He informed Mr. Spaulding that Council must make its decision based on what Council believes to be in the best interest of the overall community. It was the consensus that Par 3 should provide professionally prepared elevations of the proposed structure along with landscape and lighting plans, and that the following conditions should apply: that siding on the facility should be cedar; that the entire length of the driveway must be asphalt; that the dumpster on the west side of the building must be fenced and fully screened; that the beverage machine and portable bathroom must be on separated concrete pads outside of the building; that there can be no outside storage of equipment or materials; and, that the portable bathroom facility should be permanently anchored to prevent vandalism. CASE NO. 00-34, KUBAT Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Jeffrey Kubat for a 16 foot front yard setback variance for a garage addition at 2341 Kressin Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Kubat informed Council that his new proposal address all of the earlier concerns. His original proposal (denied by Council in July) was for a full double garage. One of Council's objections to that proposal was the size, and he has reduced the footprint of the building by one-third. He stated that he is adding one window and the existing landscaping will continue. An existing blue spruce will cover at least half of the addition and there will be additional Page No. 13 September 5, 2000 landscaping. He reviewed the proposed site plan and showed Council photos of his home. He stated that the addition would have the same roof line as his house and that it will have two double doors rather than two single doors. The existing walkway will be retained. He showed photos of his neighborhood to illustrate the setback. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback, but in an established neighborhood, the setback is established by the original homes and other homes must maintain that setback. Mr. Kubat stated that he is trying to illustrate that the setback could not be seen because of the landscaping. Because of the existing trees, people could not see how far the addition is set back. Councilmember Huber responded that the most important aspect is the impact on the immediate neighbors. What Mr. Kubat is proposing is to move the setback forward for the entire block. If Council approves the variance, it should allow everyone on Kressin to do the same. He stated that he is not willing to say that the setback line should be brought forward for the whole block. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Kubat's point in showing the photos is that the neighbors can-not see one another's properties. Mr. Kubat stated that if the intent of the ordinance is that people can see from one end of the block to the other, the city should regulate the landscaping. He stated that he could plant a window of spruce around his house. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the reason for the setback is so everyone has the same view tip and down the street. He informed Mr. Kubat that he cannot equate his property with Friendly Hills, where Council has granted front yard setback variances, because the lots in Friendly Hills are much smaller. He asked Mr. Kubat how large his lot is. Mr. Kubat responded that his lot is 90 feet wide and 190 feet deep. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the lots in Mr. Kubat's neighborhood are all very deep, which is why the front yard setback is 45 feet. This contrasts with Friendly Hills where the lots are only 60 feet wide and about 10,000 square feet. In Friendly Hills there are no sideyards to extend into. Page No. 14 September 5, 2000 Mr. Kubat responded that he cannot extend into the sideyard because he only has ten feet on either side of his house. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that Mr. Kubat could build the addition to the rear of his home since the lot is so deep. Councilmember Dwyer stated that it makes no economic sense for Mr. Kubat to extend his home to the rear. Councilmember Huber stated that if Mr. Kubat is allowed the variance and his neighbors wanted to do the same thing, Council would have no reason to say no to them. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he would have no problem if all of the neighbors said they want to go to the 30 foot setback. The problem with this request is that a couple of the property owners would want to expand into the setback and people's site lines would be cut off. Either Council follows the rules or it does not, and following the rules is what has maintained the property values in Mendota Heights. Mr. Kubat stated that Council has granted variances in Friendly Hills and those homes are the same age as his. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the age of the home makes no difference. Council is bound to follow the city's rules irTegardless of the age of the home. If Council approved the variance for Mr. Kubat, it would have to grant the same to others. If the variance is granted for Mr. Kubat, his lot would be different from everyone else's. He stated that Council rarely grants variances to encroach into the front yard except in Friendly Hills because the property owners do not have any other room to expand because of the lot sizes. City Attorney Hart stated that the whole concept of a variance is that Council goes through the process with each application. Before Council can consider granting the application, it would have to find there is something unique about the topography that makes this a compelling case that there is a hardship for this lot. Council would have to determine there is something unusual about this lot that makes it unique. If Council does not find that unusual circumstance it cannot approve a variance. The neighbors have a right to rely on a consistent application of the ordinance. Page No. 15 September 5, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer asked why Mr. Kubat did not look to see that he would be locked into the 45 foot setback when he bought his house. He stated that Council must identify a hardship and that is not that it will cost more to expand to the rear. He pointed out that it is physically possible to expand to the rear. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council denied Mr. Kubat's earlier variance application and there is only a two foot difference in the new proposal. Councilmember Krebsbach noted that a number of the neighbors have signed a statement of support for the proposal. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she spoke to one of the people who signed the statement and he did not care either way. Another said he really did not want to see the addition approved. Mr. Kubat stated that his hardship was to have handicap access for his aging parents and his wife's aging parents. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Mr. Kubat can build a ramp for handicap access within the setback. Mr. Kubat stated that he wants to contain it in the garage rather than an unsightly ramp outside. The other hardship is the security issue. His daughter comes in at night and her car has been broken into. Attorney Hart responded that the hardship must be peculiar to the property. Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 00-77,"A RESOLUTION DENYING A 16 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 2341 KRESSIN AVENUE," on the basis that no hardship exists. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUDGET WORKSHOP Councilmember Dwyer moved to conduct a budget workshop at 7:30 p.m. on November 14. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 16 September 5, 2000 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach asked about street signs on Douglas at Victoria (both sides of Douglas). Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Planning Commission has requested that a representative of the Police Department be present at their next meeting with respect to the traffic calming matter. Interim Administrator Danielson stated that staff has met with Mn/DOT and will bring information to the Planning Commission at the next Commission meeting. Councilmember Huber asked that the Public Works Department trim the trees along Wachtler. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he has received several complaints about speed on Copperfield Drive and asked Chief Johnson to increase the presence of squad cars in the area. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Huber moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:54 p.m. K/athleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor