Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Zimmenuan questioned if the frontage road is proposed to be placed in the front <br />or rear of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Zitzloff replied that he moved the whole project back based on the recommendation of Staff <br />to allow for a frontage road along Highway/410. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sherman explained that in this section along Highway #10 it <br />made more sense to place the frontage road in front of the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman questioned the access from Highway #10. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sherman replied that the Planning Commission discussed the <br />issue and the plan was sent to MnDOT, but no response has been received as of yet. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Anderson, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen, to table the item <br />until the next Council meeting at which time City Attorney Goodrich will provide information on <br />Minnesota Statute 444. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Anderson, Hendriksen, and <br />Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Abstain: CouncilmemberConnolly. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen requested that City Engineer Jankowski initiate the process of <br />crossing the railroad track. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec recessed the regular City Council meeting at 9:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec called the regular City Council meeting back to order at 9:40 p.m. <br /> <br />Case #15: Case from Citizen Input <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich cautioned the Council to limit their discussion to what the ordinance <br />states in order not to jeopardize a future court case. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he has previously talked to Mr. Green regarding the problem and that <br />his main concern was to have the truck removed from the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sherman explained that the City ordinance allows for storage <br />of commercial vehicles with screening up to 75 percent of the vehicle. Storing the vehicle on a <br />driveway is in violation of the ordinance. She explained that the resident first received a letter <br />infornfing them they were in violation of an ordinance in July 1999, and were given a deadline of <br />on or before August 18t~ to correct the problem. The problem was not corrected and the time was <br />extended to September 13th. The resident then contacted the City requesting a year to correct the <br /> <br />City Council/September 28, 1999 <br /> Page 19 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />