Loading...
11/03/2003 - 29229CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 2003 The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Billings, Councilmember Wolfe and Councilmember Bolkcom. None. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of October 13, 2003. APPROVED. 1. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 15. 2003. RECEIVED. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 59-2003 APPROVING A PLAT, P.S. #03-07, NORTON MANOR FOURTH ADDITION, BY MICHAEL JUAIRE, PMJ GROUP, ICN., FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A 4-UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1215 NORTON AVENUE N.E. W( ARD 2). Dr. William Burns, City Manager, said the preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on October 27, 2003. Staff and some residents in the neighborhood met with Mr. Juaire on November 7, 2003, and he agreed to a timetable for completion of work on this and prior projects. Mr. Juaire also understood that rules governing working hours, use of City water, use of City streets, cleaning of City streets, etc., would be strictly enforced. Staff recommended Council's approval of the final plat subject to fourteen stipulations. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 59-2003 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 3 took six to eight hours. Within twelve to sixteen hours after the streets are plowed, the City plowed concrete sidewalks, improved alleys that run from block to block and municipal parking lots. The City did not plow bikeways or asphalt paths. The plan also specified that there was to be no parking on City streets between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. between November 1 and April 1. For larger snowstorms of 8 to 15 inches, plowing would generally commence when there was about 6 inches of snow on the streets. If the storm was expected to bring more than 15 inches of snow, a snow emergency plan was activated. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED 2003-2004 CITY OF FRIDLEY SNOW REMOVAL OPERATIONS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 5. CLAIMS. APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 113974 THROUGH 114071. 6. LICENSES. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 7. ESTIMATES. Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374-9461 2003 Street Improvement Marian Hills Project No. ST. 2003 —1 EstimateNo. 5 ........................................................................................ $101,002.27 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Legal Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of July, 2003 ............................................................................... $ 18,160.50 No one in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Wolfe asked if there was a timeframe for completion of items on the Norton Avenue project. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 5 $3,862.34. Debris was removed from 5750 Madison Avenue, at a cost of $2,249.81. At the request of the attorney representing Mr. Ulrich, the public hearings had been continued twice. Since the Council meeting on October 27, staff received a letter from Mr. Anthony Howe, the owner of the property at 6211 Sunrise Drive, objecting to the assessment. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive a memorandum from Julie Jones, Environmental Planner, dated October 28, 2003, regarding the tree abatement at 6211 Sunrise Drive. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive a letter from Mr. Anthony Howe, 6211 Sunrise Drive N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive a faxed letter from Christopher J. Dietzen, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., dated November 3, 2003. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Mr. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, discussed the deck that was removed at 157 Hartman Circle, which included photographs that showed the deck and its close proximity to the Mississippi River's edge. The purpose of his presentation was to create record regarding the contested abatement of the structure and to respond to a letter dated May 27, 2003, from Mr. Christopher Dietzen on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Hickok said City records showed that the home was built in 1956, and a permit was issued. No plans were submitted nor permits issued at that time for a deck at that location. No additional permits were requested until electrical and heating permits were requested and issued in 1976. It was clear from the records that many permits were requested and issued for work done at this address, yet no permit was requested or issued for the deck. Mr. Ulrich's attorney stated that by 1975 a larger deck structure was built over the footings and made part of the patio platform. The deck as it existed in 1974 and as it was remodeled was a lawful use under the existing City ordinances. In July, 1997, two deck permits were issued, neither of which were for the deck in question. Mr. Hickok said the 1971 Code of Ordinances stated that "no use shall be permitted in any district, nor shall existing land contour or drainage be substantially altered without a building permit. No such permit shall be issued for any building or use not in conformity." Consequently, the deck was built without a permit. Attorney Dietzen stated his client bought the house in 1974 and by 1975, a larger deck structure was built over the footings and made part of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 7 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City sent a letter to Mr. Ulrich within six days after the application was received stated that it was not complete and that it still needed the survey. Mr. Hickok said it did. The letter stated that the application was insufficient. In the letter, Mr. Ulrich was also alerted that he had an additional 30 days to remove the structure or it would be removed, and costs plus a 25 percent administration fee would be assessed to the properiy. No response was received from Mr. Ulrich. According to Mr. Ulrich's attorney, on January 30, 2003, city officials armed with numerous police officers and squad cars entered on to the property without permission and removed the deck. Staff arrived on site with Advance Restoration Company, the company hired to remove the deck. Advance Restoration requested police accompaniment for the abatement. Officers Knutson, Cardinal and Sergeant Prois were initially on the site. Officer Knutson's report indicated that when they arrived they stood by as workers began to take down the deck. Mr. Ulrich came out of the house and asked what we were doing on his property. Mr. Ulrich was advised that they were there to make sure everything ran smoothly, and he said there would be no problems. Officer Knutson remained in the area while Sergeant Prois and Officer Cardinal left. Shortly after, Mr. Ulrich left without further incident. Officer Knutson then left and told us to let him know if we needed them to come back. Mr. Hickok said the deck was not a legal, non-conforming structure. It had been entirely rebuilt without a permit. Proper procedures for abatement were followed. The City's abatement process required 30 days. Mr. Ulrich was given over four months. He could have provided a schedule for compliance with the law, but he did not. He was offered the right to appeal to the Appeals Commission, but failed to provide necessary information. His project could not receive a building permit or a variance because it was contrary to Fridley's city ordinances and to the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area standards for protecting the natural appearance of the river corridor. Permits could not be granted for such uses in this river corridor. Witnesses would testify to the new construction they observed on this site and that the entire structure was built after March, 2001. Staff recommended that this assessment be paid and the costs be borne by the individual rather than the City. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if in 1974 or prior there was a pertnit issued for the deck. Mr. Hickok said there was not. Attorney Dietzen, the attorney for Mr. Ulrich, said the City referred to witnesses but none had been identified. He said there was a disagreement on the facts and on the law. They think the City violated its own procedure in not conducting a public hearing to determine if there was a non-conforming use. They did not think that the City followed procedure to remove the deck. The statement that Mr. Ulrich was offered the right to appeal and told exactly about the process was false. Council was told that the variance application was incomplete and was returned. Mr. Ulrich was told that if he applied for a variance by whenever the date was, he did not need to do anything further. He was told when he submitted the application that it was complete. The City sent it back and followed the process of removing the deck, which he and his client thought violated the law and Mr. Ulrich's constitutional property rights. The statement was made that staff made it clear to Mr. Ulrich that he needed a scaled map. That was not true. Mr. Ulrich was told a sketch would be acceptable. When he submitted the application he was told it was , FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was a permit at that time. PAGE 9 Attorney Dietzen said when Mr. Ulrich moved into the home in 1974, it was already there. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if he did or did not build a deck. Attorney Dietzen said that in his letter he should have said there were footings and a platform over the footings. In 1974, Mr. Ulrich improved on what was already there. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that was in the same location as the deck that was torn down. Attorney Dietzen said that what was there in the 1974/1975 timeframe stayed there until approximately 2001. In 2001 the deck was made larger. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how much larger. Attorney Dietzen said in 1974 the deck was approximately 16 or 18 feet by 24 feet and it had room for storage, existing footings, a platform over the footings, and a stairway. Councilmember Bolkcom said it was expanded in 2001. Attorney Dietzen said it happened a little at a time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the size and if there was a building permit. Attorney Dietzen said there was not a building permit for that. He did not know for sure what the dimensions were, but thought it was 24 feet. He was not sure of the width, but it looked like there were two platforms rather than one. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it encroached on the river bluff more in 2001. Attorney Dietzen said he did not know which direction it went. Councilmember Bolkcom said in 2001, there was a river bluff ordinance. She asked if he knew whether in 2001 the expansion encroached upon the river bluff. Attorney Dietzen said he could not answer the question. His client's wanted to be able to rebuild the deck as it existed prior to the work done in 2001. Councilmember Bolkcom said there was nothing on record anywhere because there was never any building permit or surveys. Attorney Dietzen said they looked at aerial photographs and pictures and there was no question as to where the deck was. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they knew where the original footings were. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 11 Attorney Knaak said there were ways to discontinue a use or have an otherwise non-conforming use become unlawful. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if someone applied for a building permit at some point they would be told that they also needed a variance. Attorney Knaak said typically. Attorney Dietzen said he did not disagree that if there was an expansion of a pre-existing, non- conforming use that one could apply for a variance. It was done in this case, and they believe that it was improper for the City to reject the application. The proper procedure would have been to say it was incomplete. Statute 462.357 indicated that if the non-conforming use was destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, any subsequent use shall be conforming. The fire or other peril was not the circumstance that applied in this case. The other part of the statute indicated that if the non-conformity or occupancy was discontinued for more than one year, any subsequent use shall be conforming. The testimony of Mr. Ulrich and the two witnesses was that during this time period there was no discontinuance of the use for more than one year. Their perspective was that as of 2001, there was a pre-existing, non-conforming legal use. The removal of the deck by the City was unlawful. Mr. Ulrich believed that he had a right to a legal, non-conforming use and he was willing to have that use be maintained at the pre-2001 timeframe. The special assessment procedure was contrary to law and constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation. Councilmember Bolkcom said she spoke to Mr. Ulrich during the process. She said she visited the structure and spoke with Ms. Grover and told her a variance was needed. She believed the City treated Mr. Ulrich and Ms. Grover fairly. Mayor Lund indicated staff said a letter was sent with the variance application that said the application was not complete. Mr. Ulrich thought he was in conformance with the application once it was submitted. He asked why Mr. Ulrich did not respond to the letter. Attorney Dietzen said the letter that was sent to Mr. Ulrich on November 14 said that because a complete application was not received by the November 8 deadline, he had 30 days to remove the deck. It was his interpretation that the issue of a variance was removed at that time. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the letter said anything about contacting the City. Mr. Hickok said it did. Mayor Lund said that Attorney Dietzen indicated they felt the process was flawed because there was no public hearing. He asked if a public hearing was required. Attorney Knaak said notice provided and it was incumbent upon him that if wanted a hearing to ask for one. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 13 Mr. Ron Julkowski stated his name and agreed that he was the building official. Attorney Knaak asked him if he heard Mr. Hickok's earlier statement of what occurred at the location of Mr. Ulrich's property. Mr. Julkowski said he did. Attorney Knaak asked him for his recollection. Mr. Julkowski said he, Scott Hickok, and Dave Jensen went to Mr. Ulrich's residence. They had received a telephone call from a person across the river. He gave Mr. Ulrich his business card. They asked if they could go back and look at the structure and received Mr. Ulrich's approval. Mr. Knaak asked if they went back and looked at the structure. Mr. Julkowski said they did. Mr. Knaak asked if as a building official, he had the opportunity to review the structural integrity of the project. Mr. Julkowski said he did but he did not go in the structure. It was a large structure and the fastening system to the plywood and deck materials were done with deck screws. The building code did not allow that. Mr. Knaak asked what should have been used. Mr. Julkowski replied nails. Mr. Knaak asked what kind of structure it was Mr. Julkowski said it looked a storage room with some type of platform on top with a stairway leading to it. Mr. Knaak said it was something more than a platform. Mr. Julkowski said it was more. It had windows facing the river. The stairway was non- complying. He advised Mr. Jensen not to climb the stairway. Mr. Knaak asked why. Mr. Julkowski said it did not look secure. Mr. Knaak asked him if based on his experience he had any opinion as to whether there was any hazard involved in being on that structure or near that structure. � , , I � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 15 Attorney Dietzen asked if they told Mr. Ulrich that they were concerned that deck screws were used instead of nails. Mr. Julkowski said no. Attorney Dietzen asked if he told Mr. Ulrich that he was concerned about the stairway not being secured. Mr. Julkowski said yes. Attorney Dietzen asked if Mr. Ulrich told him that the project had not yet been completed with respect to that issue. Mr. Julkowski said that at that point it did not matter because they could not issue the building permit. Pursuant to the building code, they could not let him proceed. Mayor Lund asked if any witnesses wished to speak. Attorney Dietzen said he did not think it was necessary. They would testify that there was a structure in existence in the late 1960s, and the structure continued until the 2001 timeframe when the improvements were constructed. There was no time period where the use was discontinued for twelve months or more. Councilmember Billings asked if the area under the deck was enclosed. Attorney Dietzen said it was his understanding that from 1975 until 2001 there was an area underneath the deck that was used as a storage and play area. Councilmember Billings asked if that was there in 1974. Attorney Dietzen said there was an area in that timeframe. Councilmember Billings said when Mr. Ulrich moved into the home in 1974 there was a platform. Sometime between 1974 and 2001 it became a deck, a storage axea and a play area. He asked if it was enclosed and if so, was it enclosed in 1974 when it was purchased. Attorney Dietzen said in looking at his notes, it looked like there was a storage area underneath the deck in the 1974 timeframe that was not enclosed. In 2003, there was a storage and play area under the deck that had a door and three windows. He was not sure. Councilmember Billings asked if any staff or Council members know what had been underneath the deck. Councilmember Barnette said in 2001 there was a structure that looked like a playroom with windows and a door. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 17 Mr. Hickok said over the course of the years, there were electrical permits and plumbing permits. Mr. Burns asked if there was a response to the letter that was sent regarding the application. He asked if they pointed out why the application was incomplete and if there were any discussions with Mr. Ulrich. Mr. Hickok said the standard process was to provide the application and as much information as possible to the applicant. On the back of the application was a matrix that showed what was required for a residential application to be considered complete. In this case, there was no reference to the bluffline on the plan that was submitted. The City's practice was when an application was made and the application was incomplete, it was returned. There are certain deadline dates for everyone. They made it very clear to applicants that if the application was not complete it would be returned. The letter also indicated that if the application was not complete, the structure would need to be removed. His application was not complete. There was no reference to a bluffline. Mr. Burns asked if staff would have told Mr. Ulrich the application was complete when it was accepted. Mr. Hickok said it was a broad interpretation to believe that taking the application at the counter meant it was okay and correct. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it was all spelled out on the initial letter sent regarding a variance request. Mr. Hickok said it was. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they also had conversations with Mr. Ulrich related to the bluffline. Mr. Hickok said they were extremely careful to make sure that he was getting the best service possible. Councilmember Bolkcom said staff received a complaint from someone who lived across the river about the deck and that was why they originally became involved. Mr. Hickok agreed. Mayor Lund said Mr. Howe had a problem with the assessment to his property for the removal of dead trees. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when the trees were cut down. Mr. Hickok said he did not have the date. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 19 Mr. Hickok said that the safeguards were typically in place. He said they put "current resident" on the envelope so people would know it was about the address. Attorney Dietzen said that Mr. Ulrich was not able to attend the meeting. He was on a business trip to Hong Kong and was unable to change it. The record was not complete because Mr. Ulrich was not present. Councilmember Billings said that Mr. Ulrich was present when the hearing was initially scheduled in October. Attorney Dietzen said they initially tried to continue it for a later date, in part because Mr. Ulrich was not going to be available. Councilmember Billings said it was originally tabled to November 7, 2003. Attorney Dietzen said he was in court and it may have been his schedule that prevented them from being at the last meeting. Councilmember Billings said that Council was also faced with deadlines with the County. Attorney Dietzen said that the City Attorney informed him of that and that was the reason the hearing was held tonight. He was making a record that when this was continued, it was his understanding that they would have an opportunity to respond to the City's letter that was put into the record. Councilmember Billings said the presentation made by Mr. Hickok was the same as the letter that was sent by Attorney Knaak several months ago. Attorney Dietzen said there were some new items. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if anyone knew that Mr. Ulrich was not going to be at the meeting. Attorney Dietzen said it was verbal between him and the City Attorney. He said they were trying to continue it for a later date, but the City Attorney indicated that he would make every effort to continue it. Mr. Knaak then sent a response that said it needed to be held tonight because it was the last date they could do it. Mr. Hickok said he was ready to make his presentation at the last Council meeting, but it was continued at Mr. Ulrich's and his attorney's request. Mr. Knaak said the record had been completely stated. It was unfortunate that Mr. Ulrich was not present, but the statement that he was not at the meeting and the reason he was not at the meeting was put in the record. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 21 Councilmember Billings asked if property owners were notified in the fall of 2002 that there was a good chance that they were going to be assessed an amount not to exceed $15 per foot for the curb and gutter. Mr. Haukaas said they were. Councilmember Billings asked what the actual price of curb and gutter was. Mr. Haukaas said $11.83 per foot. Councilmember Billings said for an 80-foot frontage, a person would be paying about $900. Mr. Haukaas agreed. Councilmember Billings said that there was a resolution to approve the assessments. He asked when the first installment would go on property taxes. Mr. Pribyl said it would be payable in 2004. The first payment would be due on the first half of the taxes in 2004. Councilmember Billings asked how long a person would have to pay the assessment in full. Mr. Pribyl said December 3, 2003, or thirty days from when the resolution was actually adopted. Councilmember Billings asked if they had to prepay the whole amount. Mr. Pribyl said the entire amount should be prepaid. Councilmember Billings asked how much would roll to the 2004 taxes if the amount was not prepaid. Mr. Pribyl said there would be ten, equal, annual payments plus interest. There was discussion about paying the assessment early and the fact that it was not ta�c deductible. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a letter would be sent out regarding the assessment. Mr. Pribyl said a final assessment letter would be sent out. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 PAGE 23 Mr. Pribyl said there would be another year's worth of interest added to the assessment. He said they could bring it off the table and put it on the next assessment period. Dr. William Burns, City Manager, asked if a motion to table indefinitely could be brought off the table at some later point. Attorney Knaak said a motion to table without a time certain was a motion to table for an indefinite period. Because it was an indefinite period, it could be brought from the table. UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE INDEFINITELY, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, MP #03-01, BY MOHAGEN/HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, ON BEHALF OF COLUMBIA PARK MEDICAL GROUP, TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN FOR COLUMBIA PARK MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE PARKING AND BUILDING EXPANSION, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 6341 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. (WARD 1) (TABLED OCTOBER 27, 2003). Mr. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, said the Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group on behalf of the Columbia Park Medical Group requested an amendment to its master plan to allow for future parking and building expansion. At the October 27 Council meeting the item was tabled to allow Council time to evaluate the request. Staff believed there was an alternative that would address the majority of all concerns. Immediately adjacent to the east side of the building, there were three parking stalls. They should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and should be signed for patient parking only with enforcement being Columbia Park's responsibility with violators to be towed. Immediately north of the building there was a combination of patient drop-off and parallel parking stalls. Those stalls were a 10 foot equivalent and should be signed for patient parking only with enforcement being Columbia Park's responsibility with violators to be towed. Immediately west of the building there was a row of ADA-compliant handicapped stalls and at the end of the row was another standard stall. This stall should be a minimum of 10 feet and should be signed for patient parking only with enforcement being Columbia Park's responsibility with violators being towed. The remaining portion of the lot could be striped at a minimum of 9-foot stall widths. Staff recommended approval of the master plan amendment. Councilmember Billings asked how many 9 foot stalls would be lost with this method. Mr. Hickok said with this particular design, they would gain 30 stalls and lose 2. Councilmember Billings asked if they had spoken with the petitioner. Mr. Hickok said they had. Councilmember Billings asked if they received any objections. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2003 Mr. Hansen said there would be 240 to 242. PAGE 25 Councilmember Billings said currently there was 1 handicapped stall for every 50. Thirty more would be added and of that amount, two would handicapped. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve Master Plan, MP #03-01 for the Columbia Park Medical Group with the following four stipulations: 1. Petitioner to provide landscape plan for the complex prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. Petitioner shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction; 3. The proposed additions shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building and finished with complementary building materials; and 4. Parking stalls to be reduced to a minimum of 9 feet width in all parking areas except for those stalls in the first row west and first row east of the building. In those aisles, ADA stall dimensions shall apply to any handicap parking stalls. All other stalls in those two aisles shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Parking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the design on file in the office of the City Engineer. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 12. RESOLUTION NO. 60-2003 ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2003 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2003 —1. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to adopt Resolution No. 60-2003. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. Councilmember Billings said he would be abstaining on the vote because he lived on one of the streets in the improvement project. UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS ABSTAINING, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 13. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS. Dr. William Burns, City Manager, asked Mr. Haukaas to report on the issue raised by Mr. Dorff. Mr. Jon Haukaas, Public Works Manager, said Mr. Dorf�s son, 1315 — 52°d Avenue N.E., expressed some concerns over the restoration of the concrete driveway at that location. Since that time, he examined the driveway and took pictures. He said he did not feel the problems were defects or problems that would require the driveway to be torn up and replaced. He said there was a difference in the look because there were two different contractors. He did not believe this should be an issue of concern for the City.