Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - November 15, 2011u 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Regular City Council Meeting — Tuesday, November 15, 2011 Call to Order — 7:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Resident Forum Agenda Approval 1. Approval of Minutes (10/15/11 Workshop; 11 /1 /11 Regular; 11/1/11 Closed) Consent Items 2. Approve Payment of Claims — Finance 3. Approve Resolution of Support Request No Change in Fiscal Disparities — Administration 4. Approve LMCIT Liability Coverage — Finance 5. Approve Exemption to the Discharge of Weapons (Chapter 4, Section 5 -4 -1 of the City Code) as Requested by the Anoka County Parks Department - Planning © Discussion Items 6. Anoka County Sheriff's Office Monthly Report — Sheriff 7. Consider Variance to Location & Setback Requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 for Existing Accessory Structure Located at 2102 142 °d Lane NW - Planning 8. Consider Variance to Side Yard Setback Requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5 for House Addition at 2067 142 °d Avenue NW - Planning Staff Items 9. Schedule Commission Interview Date/Discuss Community Center Advisory Commission By -Laws - Administration 10. Schedule December EDA Meeting -Administration 11. Administrator's Report — Administration Mayor /Council Input Closed Session — Public Works Union Negotiations Property Negotiations PID: 29 -32 -2444 -0022 Adjournment M R REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING — NOVEMBER 15, 2011 MINUTES H X The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Mike Gamache, November 15, 2011, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Julie Trude, and Tony Howard Councilmember absent: Sheri Bukkila (excused) Also present: City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner City Administrator, Jim Dickinson Community Development Director, Dave Carlberg Others PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RESIDENT FOR UM No one wished to address the Council. AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Gamache added "Item 5a. Approve the license agreement with Anoka County for the monument electronic reader board sign." to the Consent Items. Mayor Gamache stated additional handouts were provided to the Council for Item #7 and Item #8 and Councilmember Trude would be introducing a resolution to the Council for Item #8. Motion by Councilmember Knight, Seconded by Councilmember Trude, to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 15, 2011 City Council Workshop Meeting Motion by Councilmember Trude, Seconded by Councilmember Howard to approve the October 15, © Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 2 2011 City Council Workshop meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. November 1, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting Motion by Councilmember Knight, Seconded by Councilmember Trude to approve the November 1, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. November 1, 2011 Closed City Council Meeting Motion by Councilmember Trude, Seconded by Councilmember Howard to approve the November 1, 2011 Closed City Council Meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT ITEMS Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims. Item 3 Approve Resolution of Support Request No Change in Fiscal Disparities. (See Resolution R090 -11) Item 4 Approve LMCIT Liability Coverage. Item 5 Approve Exemption to the Discharge of Weapons (Chapter 4, Section 5 -4 -1 of the City Code) as Requested by the Anoka County Parks Department. Item 5a Approve the license renewal with Anoka County for the monument electronic reader board sign. Motion by Councilmember Trude, Seconded by Councilmember Knight, for approval of the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT Commander Kevin Halweg, Anoka County Sheriff's Office, provided the Council and the citizens of Andover with an update on law enforcement activities within the City including DUI arrests, domestic assaults and arrests for drug possession. Councilmember Trude asked if the problems that had been reported previously in regard to an area business have been reduced. 0 Commander Halweg stated the number of incidents involving this location has declined this month. © Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 3 CONSIDER VARIANCE TO LOCATION & SETBACKREQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12- 6-5 FOR EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2102142 LANE NW Community Development Director Carlberg stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow an existing accessory structure to remain at its present location in the drainage and utility easement. It is less than 5 -feet from the side property line. This issue was brought to the City's attention due to a complaint about its location and size. He provided additional background information and stated the Council is asked to compare the variance request with the review criteria of City Code 12 -14 -7 and to approve or deny the proposed variance. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Councilmember Knight stated the State has determined a set of review criteria for cities to follow when granting variance requests. He asked what had changed in these criteria. Community Development Director Carlberg reviewed the criteria and stated in order to approve a variance the Council needed to find there was a practical difficulty in meeting the City Code versus the previous undue hardship, the review criteria allows for more clarity in what the Council needs to look at when granting variances. © Councilmember Trude clarified there were two problems with this structure that would have been identified had the applicant applied for a building permit as required by the City Code. One is the setback on the side yard and the other is the rear setback with the drainage and utility easement. She stated this structure is in the drainage and utility easement and this would affect the drainage of other properties in the neighborhood. Community Development Director Carlberg stated this property has a 10 -foot rear yard drainage and utility easement on the property. This is a standard lot for the R4 District. Because the drainage and utility easement is more than the City requirement of a 5 -foot rear setback the drainage and utility easement requirement of 10 -foot would be followed. Councilmember Trude stated there had been another property in this neighborhood that had three smaller sheds in the drainage and utility easement. This situation led to the City approving a policy that would allow for structures under 120 - square feet, not on permanent slabs, to be located in drainage and utility easements. These types of structures tend not to alter drainage because they do not have floors and are not permanent structures. She stated she was not aware of other accessory structures in this neighborhood that were the size of the applicant's structure. She clarified the drainage for this property would need to be reviewed before the City could approve a variance because as indicated by the applicant this is a permanent structure larger than 120 - square feet. © Community Development Director Carlberg stated this was correct. The structure is 168 - square feet, or 12x14, and is set on a permanent slab. The size, location, and drainage would have all been reviewed as part of the building permit application process had the applicant applied for a building permit. © Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 4 Councilmember Trude stated the City had procedures in place to address situations where something was constructed without a permit. Once it was brought to the City's attention then a permit would need to be applied for and an additional permit fee may be required. The structure may or may not be approved and would need to be removed if it is not approved. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the City does have a process and just because a structure is in place does not guarantee the structure would be approved. The City does have the ability to collect a double permit fee for these types of situations. This particular structure was brought to the City's attention due to a resident concern. Councilmember Trude clarified there had been concern from a neighbor that had triggered the City's involvement in this situation. Mayor Gamache invited the applicants to address the Council. Mr. Ryan Dostal, 2102 142 nd Lane NW, Andover, stated the structure had been built two months ago. Before construction he had talked with the neighbors directly adjacent to his property to discuss the shed and get their approval. The location for the shed was chosen in order to maximize the use of the yard and provide screening for the structure. He stated he would pay to obtain a permit at this time and the structure was well constructed. He explained moving the structure at this time would be difficult because it had been built to be a permanent structure. He understands that he made a mistake by not obtaining a building permit prior to constructing the shed but would like to have the variance granted in order to keep it. Ms. Anna Dostal, 2102 142 nd Lane NW, Andover, stated the shed was built in the most logical place on the property to allow them to utilize their backyard. There are many sheds in the City located right on the property lines. They had obtained signatures from the neighborhood in support of the structure and she does not understand who would complain since everyone in the neighborhood supported it. She had sent an e -mail to Councilmember Bukkila and she stated her only concern was staff was directed to react to complaints and not seek out violations. Mr. Dostal, stated he did not have drainage problems on his property and they would like to keep the structure where it is located. If the City needs to run utilities in this location in the future he would be willing to sign a waiver and incur any costs associated with this due to the location of the structure. He stated he would also agree to putting the structure on blocks or putting in permeable pavers or other storm water management controls the City feels would need to be installed in order to keep the structure in its current location. Moving the structure would be expensive and difficult at this time. © Councilmember Trude stated the City takes confidential complaints from residents. This allows residents to make calls to the City without the fear of retribution in their. neighborhood. She pointed out that if a building permit had been obtained then the problems could have been © Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 5 identified and resolved prior to the construction of the shed. The City has codes and ordinances in order to set a standard for residents. The City Council needs to be mindful of these when granting variances of this nature because the City Council is the regulatory authority for the whole City. Councilmember Knight stated if the City is not consistent with the application of laws then there are problems. Most of the sheds that are constructed in Andover are under 120- square foot and located on skids that allow them to be moved. The City does have a policy in place that allows these smaller structures to be located in drainage and utility easements. Mayor Gamache stated he would consider approval of this structure if it were moved to meet a 5- foot rear setback and 5 -foot side yard setback. He does not want the shed to remain against the fence. City Administrator Dickinson clarified the structure would not meet the policy requirements set in 2009 because the shed is 168- square feet, not 120- square feet, and it is a permanent structure located within the drainage and utility easement. If the Council determines the shed could be within the drainage and utility easement then the 10 -foot setback requirement should be reviewed © to determine if this is an acceptable easement amount. The 10 -foot rear setback is a standard size for Andover. Councilmember Howard stated the option to raise the shed would not work because there would be debris and other items accumulated under the shed and this would create additional problems. He would consider Mayor Gamache's suggestion of moving the structure to a 5 -foot rear setback and 5 -foot side yard setback. Councilmember Trude stated moving the shed into the middle of the yard may create other problems because the yard is not graded to provide drainage for this type of structure. The City would have to have an engineering review of this property to see if the drainage was working properly and if the whole drainage easement was needed. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the value of applying for a building permit is the review of drainage and grade changes that may need to be made on the property would have been identified prior to construction. Councilmember Trude asked what drainage problems would be created with moving the structure as well. She stated she would be hesitant in moving the structure without knowing the impact the structure would have on drainage in its current location versus other locations on the property. Q Community Development Director Carlberg stated if this request is denied and the structure needs to be moved a building permit would be required. As part of that building permit application the drainage would be reviewed. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember Howard stated the City needed to look at the drainage in order to make a determination. Councilmember Knight stated this is an issue that could impact the whole City and a resolution needs to be reached. Councilmember Trude stated the difficulty in allowing the structure to stay in its current location is it disregards drainage issues and the building permit process. The structure is not going to be approved in its current location and since it needs to be moved it should be placed to comply with the City's Codes and policies. This was not an issue created by the City. She stated she could not support this request since the applicant knew a building permit would be needed. A building of this size will displace a large amount of storm water and this will impact the drainage for the neighborhood. The City Council needs to enforce the Code and pass the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor Gamache stated the City would have given Mr. Dostal direction for the location and size of this structure if he had applied for a building permit. He asked if the decisions made by Mr. Dostal would have changed based on this information. Mr. Dostal stated he would have looked at other locations on the property but the size would have remained the same. He would have had a hard time putting it in the location suggested by the Council. At the time it was constructed it was placed in the most logical location that provided the best screening for the neighborhood. Mayor Gamache stated the ordinances and policies are in place for a reason and unfortunately they do not always work for everyone. The City does need to be consistent with its enforcement of these codes and ordinances so that it does not set a negative precedence for future requests. Councilmember Trude stated based on the information presented to the Council the review criteria for the approval of the variance have not been met. The Council cannot consider the financial impact alone and the reason for the request is not unique to the property due to a situation not created by the landowner. Mayor Gamache stated there are other sheds in the area that are close to the property lines but these meet the City's policy that was established in 2009. There are probably other sheds within the City that are in violation of the City's Codes but these are not being considered at this time. The Council can only base their decision on what is being presented at this time for this situation. Motion by Councilmember Trude to deny the request for a variance to location and setback © requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 for the accessory structure at 2102 142 Lane NW based on the findings of fact. Councilmember Trude gave direction to staff to review the drainage for the property and decide Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 7 if the structure could be located with a 5 -foot rear setback or if it would need to meet the 10 -foot rear setback easement. She asked if the drainage would be reviewed during the building permit process and if a determination would be made regarding where the shed could be located. City Administrator Dickinson stated the motion to deny the variance request should include a time frame for the moving of the structure or applying for a building permit. Mayor Gamache stated with the weather changing it may not move until spring. Councilmember Trude clarified the City could not find a reason for the shed to remain in its current location that would meet the criteria set for the approval of a variance request. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the City's Codes and policies require there be a 10 -foot rear setback and if the City wants to approve less than this then a variance will still be required. City Attorney Baumgartner stated under 12 -6 -5E an accessory building shall not be constructed in drainage and utility easements. Even if the Council allows this structure to encroach 5 -feet into the drainage and utility easement then a variance will be required. He also suggested the City obtain an encroachment agreement with the property owner if the structure is placed within the drainage and utility easement. City Administrator Dickinson clarified the City's policy allowed for a non - permanent structure less than 120- square feet to be placed within the drainage and utility easement. This policy also requires approval by the City Council, may require an encroachment agreement and there are to be no complaints by neighboring property owners. Councilmember Trude stated the direction she gave to staff has no impact on the process because the drainage would be reviewed as part of the normal process. Based on the discussions of the Council, Councilmember Trude withdrew her previous motion denying the resolution and giving additional direction to staff. Motion by Councilmember Trude, Seconded by Councilmember Howard to approve the resolution denying the request for a variance to location and setback requirements of City Code 12 -6 -5 for the accessory structure at 2102 142 Lane NW based on the findings of fact in the resolution. Councilmember Howard asked what time frame would be acceptable for the Council to have the © applicant apply for a building permit. Community Development Director Carlberg stated an appropriate time frame to look at would be a two week deadline for Mr. Dostal to apply for a building permit. This would start the City's Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 8 internal process and staff could work with Mr. Dostal to see if the structure could be moved this fall or if it would need to wait until spring. Mr. Dostal stated he would apply for a permit within a week. The motion was called to a vote. The motion carried unanimously. (See Resolution R091 -11) CONSIDER VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBA CK REQ UIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -3- 5 FOR HOUSE ADDITIONAT 2067142 AVENEUE NW Community Development Director Carlberg stated the applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to an existing home that would encroach into the 10 -foot side yard setback. There is an existing deck in this location that is 5.83 -feet from the property line and the proposed addition would be 7.83 -feet from the property line. This deck was built without a permit and if a permit had been obtained the deck would have been built within the setbacks. He provided additional information and stated the City Council is asked to compare the variance request with the review criteria of City Code 12 -14 -7 and to approve or deny the proposed variance. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Councilmember Trude stated based on the pictures provided the proposed sunroom would be screened. She also explained when the deck was built the homeowner had believed the home was built within the setback. It was not until there had been other construction in the neighborhood did he become aware of the location of the property line. She also pointed out the proposed sunroom would encroach on the setback 2 -feet less than the current deck. The location proposed would be the best location for the addition to receive solar heat and light. Councilmember Knight clarified the encroachment would be 2 -feet less than what it currently is. Community Development Director Carlberg stated this was correct. The current setback requirement would be 10 -feet on the house side and 6 -foot on the garage side. The house is in compliance with these setbacks. A signed letter of support was submitted by the neighbor whose property this addition faces. Mayor Gamache the invited applicants to address the Council. Mr. Ray, Contractor from Champion Windows of Minneapolis, explained the application and the reason for the variance request. The sunroom would be 12x16. He also explained there are no © windows on the neighboring home that would face the sunroom and the neighboring homeowner does not object to the sunroom. There are practical difficulties that preclude the sunroom from being constructed in another location including the redesign of the interior and exterior of the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 9 home, the required room, and the existing location already has a patio door and this would not change the look of the neighborhood. City Attorney Baumgartner stated the easiest way to determine if this variance meets the practical difficulties requirements for a variance approval would be to go through each of the criteria and determine if this application meets the requirements. He reminded the Council financial burden should not be the only consideration. Mr. Ray stated the movement of the sunroom to another area of the home was not practical because it would change the setup of the interior of the home and would not allow for the appropriate access to the sunroom addition. Councilmember Trude introduced a resolution into the record that addressed each of the review criteria and how granting this request meets each of these requirements. City Administrator Dickinson stated staff's job is to lay out the request and how it differs from the City's Codes but the City Council makes the final decision. Councilmember Knight stated a sunroom on the north side of the property would be impractical since it would not receive sunlight. Mr. Ray explained this addition would be a sunroom and would be primarily windows. The thermal barrier of the house would be maintained. Councilmember Trude stated the key to the criteria regarding the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner is this is a sun room and it would need to be in an area where it will be able to get sunlight. The City wants to encourage residents to update their homes and enhance their neighborhoods. She read the resolution in support of the variance into the record. Motion by Councilmember Trude and Seconded by Councilmember Knight approving the resolution that approves the variance request to side yard setback requirements of City Code 12- 3-5 for a house addition at 2067 142 Avenue NW. Councilmember Trude requested a copy of the resolution be provided to the applicant and the contractor. Mayor Gamache asked for clarification on the property line and how much property the applicant thought they lost when the neighboring property was platted. Mr. Pat Hayek, 2067 142 Avenue NW, Andover, stated he did not actually loose any property. © When the fence was installed he had run a line rather than having a survey done to determine the property line. When there was another home constructed and a survey was done it was determined that he had built his fence 3 -feet into the neighboring property. He did move the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 10 fence. Mayor Gamache clarified the property lines did not change, only Mr. Hayek's perception of where the property lines were. City Administrator Dickinson pointed this addition is not encroaching on a drainage and utility easement. This property shows a 10 -foot easement in the back yard and 5 -foot setbacks on the side yards. Councilmember Howard asked if the City's Building Department had issues with the current deck because there had not been a footing inspection done. The applicant will be using these footings for the sunroom. Mr. Ray explained the current deck is 2x2 construction and 16 on center on metal hangers. There would be an additional footing installed to accommodate the sunroom. They would be looking at each of the footings and the City, as part of the building permit process would inspect all the footings. Councilmember Howard asked if the permit fee would include the permit fee for the original deck since there had not been a building permit for this structure. Community Development Director Carlberg stated he would not recommend that any double permit fees be applied. The motion was called to a vote. The motion carried unanimously. (See Resolution R092 -11) SCHEDULE COMMISSION INTERVIEW DATEIDISCUSS COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION BY -LAWS City Administrator Dickinson stated a current commissioner is considering reapplying to the Community Center Advisory Commission but this would be prohibited by the By -Law restrictions. He asked if the City Council wants to change this section of the By -Laws. City Administrator Dickinson stated this restriction was also included in the By -Laws for the Open Space Advisory Commission. Motion by Councilmember Knight, Seconded by Councilmember Howard, to remove the restriction for term limits from the By -Laws for the Community Center Advisory Commission and the Open Space Advisory Commission. The motion carried unanimously. City Administrator Dickinson stated Commission vacancies were identified in the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —November 15, 2011 Page 11 November /December 2011 Andover Today Newsletter. An application deadline of December 9, 2011 was set. Staff is requesting the City Council to set a few dates aside to interview candidates. Mayor Gamache suggested the Council set interviews for the second week in January. Councilmember Trude agreed with this timeline. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule interviews the second week of January, 2012. SCHEDULE DECEMBER EDA MEETING Motion by Councilmember Trude and seconded by Councilmember Howard to schedule an EDA meeting at 6:00 p.m. on December 20, 2011, prior to the City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 0 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Administrator Dickinson updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, an update on development /CIP projects and meeting reminders /community events including the EDA meeting on Wednesday. He stated additional signage would be needed in the City's open spaces to keep hunters, snowmobiles and ATVs off this property. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the City has received several calls regarding the openings on the Planning Commission. City Administrator Dickinson reminded residents to lock their cars and to keep valuables out of sight. This will reduce the chances of theft. Mayor Gamache asked if there were laws about the amount of signage needed to post public land. He also asked if there were people hunting in the City's open spaces. City Administrator Dickinson stated there were signs of ATV traffic in these areas and there are rumors of people hunting in these areas. Councilmember Knight suggested putting a note in the City's newsletter about no hunting, snowmobiling, or ATV traffic on the City's open space property. Councilmember Trude stated it is important for the City Council and the Planning Commission to have street view pictures for variance requests. She also said that if a decision was not clear- © Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 12 cut then staff should have other resolutions or options available for the Council to consider. Staff should not be telling the Council how to vote. Community Development Director Carlberg stated the Planning Commission would be meeting an hour prior to their meeting to work through some of the variance criteria discussions. It is difficult for the Planning Commission to have a blank resolution so they will be working on setting up some language that could be used for these resolutions. Mayor Gamache stated the Planning Commission looks at the City's Ordinances and policies and base their recommendations on these. It is the City Council's decision to approve something different. Councilmember Trude stated the discussion at the workshop should include discussions on what flexibility would be acceptable because if only the ordinances and policies are followed there would not be a need for variances. Variances are allowable and should be looked at individually to determine the circumstances and needs of the variance. Councilmember Knight pointed out the importance of obtaining a building permit prior to construction. There were several issues that could be been avoided with these two requests if a building permit had been obtained. MAYORICOUNCIL INPUT (League of Minnesota Cities Meeting) Mayor Gamache stated the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities meeting is Thursday, November 17' and he would not be able to make this at this time. He stated there had been a recent article in "The Record" talking about how Anoka County and several cities in the Anoka County lobby the State Legislature. Anoka County and its communities are not lobbying for additional dollars but rather to look at how new laws will affect cities. (Road Construction Projects) Councilmember Trude stated she had driven on the new road that was previously just gravel and she is glad the City had made the additional contribution for this project to be completed. She stated all the projects done in 2011 have been well done. Mayor Gamache recessed the regular City Council meeting at 9:04 to a closed session of the City Council to discuss Public Works Union negotiations and PID #29- 32 -24 -44 -0022. The City Council reconvened at 9:24 p.m. In ADJOURNMENT Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 13 Motion by Councilmember Knight, Seconded by Councilmember Howard, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tina Borg, Recording Secretary H HI Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2011 Page 14 REGULAR ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES — November 15, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE .......................................................................... ............................... 1 RESIDENTFORUM ....................................................................................... ............................... 1 AGENDA APPROVAL ................................................................................... ............................... 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................................................ ............................... 1 CONSENTITEMS .......................................................................................... ............................... 2 Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims .......................................................... ............................... 2 Item 3 Approve Resolution of Support Request No Change in Fiscal Disparities (See ResolutionR090- 11) ............................................................................ ............................... 2 Item 4 Approve LMCIT Liability Coverage ............................................. ............................... 2 Item 5 Approve Exemption to the Discharge of Weapons (Chapter 4, Section 5 -4 -1 of the City Code) as Requested by the Anoka County Parks Department ..... ............................... 2 Item 5a Approve the license renewal with Anoka County for the monument electronic reader boardsign ............................................................................................. ............................... 2 CONSIDER VARIANCE TO LOCATION & SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -6 -5 FOR EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2102 142 LANE NW (See Resolution R091- 11) .................................................................... ............................... 8 CONSIDER VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 12- 3-5 FOR HOUSE ADDITION AT 2067 142 AVENEUE NW (See Resolution R092- 11)..8\ SCHEDULE COMMISSION INTERVIEW DATE /DISCUSS COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION BY- LAWS ................................................. ............................... 11 SCHEDULE DECEMBER EDA MEETING ................................................ ............................... 11 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ................................................................... ............................... 11 MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT ......................................................................... ............................... 12 (League of Minnesota Cities Meeting) ...................................................... ............................... 12 (Road Construction Projects) ..................................................................... ............................... 12 I