Loading...
1984 11 19 I I I REXiUIAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1984 Mayor Hamilton called the rreeting to order. The rreeting was opened the rreeting with the Pledge to the Flag. Menb::rs Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving Manbers Absent Councilwoman SWenson Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy JoAnn Olson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving IIOVed to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of an update report on the sewer problem in Chanhassen Estates. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS, CODIFICATION OF CITY ORDINAN::ES: Upon the recarmendation of the City Manager; Councilman Geving IIOved to table this item until the City Attorney and City Manager review the bids. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, CouncilIren Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING VACATION OF A PORTION OF BLUFF CREEK DRIVE Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. Todd Alcott was present. '!he purpose of this hearing is to vacate a portion of Bluff Creek Drive right~f-way to allow for the existing residence at 1161 Bluff Creek Drive. Mr. Alcott wants to clear the ti t1e to the property in order to sell it. Councilman Geving - Any future opportunity that we would have, if we rebuild that road, I wouldn It want to have to buy back sorre easement from this property at sare future date to gain a couple of feet. Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. r-btion carried. PORTION OF BLUFF CREEK DRIVE S'lREET ~TION: RESOLUl'ION #84-62: Counci1wanan Watson IIOved the adoption of a resolution vacating a portion of Bluff Creek Drive right~f-way, Planning Case 84-5. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Counci1wanan Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. r-btion carried. MINUTES: J\rrend the October 15, 1985, Council minutes page 16, Counci1wanan Watson, by changing the following: Councilwoman Watson - I think the product is beautiful. I would like to see the lots be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. council Meeting Novemter 19, 1984 -2- Councilman Geving !roved to approve the October 15, 1984, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Council.Iren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwanan Watson !roved to note the October 24, 1984, Planning Carrnission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. 'Ihe following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Council.Iren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I BlLIS: Mayor Hamilton !roved to approve the bills as presented: check #021954 through #022038 in the amount of $1,148,430.32 and check #020706 through #020864 in the amount of $198,099.60, two checks to Carver County Treasurer in the amount of $85,444.67. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Councilroen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ~ CON'lRAC'lDR'S YARD, 8470 GAIPIN BLVD. MERLE VOLK: Barb ~ - The property is located at the northwest intersection of Lyman Blvd. and Galpin Blvd. The reqoost is for conditional use permit approval for a contractor IS yard activity including the storage and repair of construction equipnent. Mr. Volk has approximately 16 vehicles stored on the site and his operating hours are fran 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Staff is recarmending approval of the conditional use permit application subject to submission of a landscaping plan for the installation of evergreens along the south berm, also, we are asking that all equipnent must be stored within the confines of the yard and must be kept out of sight of adjacent properties. If there is to be any enlargerrent of the buildings or the operation we I are suggesting that trigger another conditional use permit. Finally, unlicensed junk vehicles must be rerroved fran the premises or stored within a building. Mayor Hamilton - Was there a problem with the unlicensed vehicles? Barb ~ - Upon site inspection there were unlicensed vehicles. Mr. Volk said that that is his hobby to restore these and it was the recarmendation of the Planning Carrnission to either he rerroves them or keep them out of sight. Councilman Horn - Are they visible fran adjacent properties? Barb ~ - No. Councilman Geving - I don I t understand the problem. Barb ~ - Under State Law and the Nuisance Ordinance, all vehicles must be licensed. Merle Volk - The junk man is supposed to come and get them. I have no problems with that. Councilman Geving - Regarding the Planning Carrnission I s recarmendation "'Ihe sub- mission of a landscaping Plan" I, personally don It see that that I s necessary. I would like to strike the first seven words of that staterrent and just indicate that, I '''!he installation of evergreens along and on top of the berm on the south side of the yard" would be the condition. Otherwise I have no problem with this. I I I Council Meeting Novemrer 19, 1984 -3- Councilman Geving noved that the conditional use pennit request to allow a contractor's yard for Merle Volk, Planning Case 84-14 be approved with the four con- ditions as indicated by the Planning Carmission with the nodification of #1 as pre- viously indicated. M::>tion seconded by CouncilInan Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwcman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. M::>tion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CONTRAC'IOR'S YARD, 8470 GAIPIN BLVD. R. !. W. SANITATION: Councilwcman Watson - I hope this is the last businesses to be conducted, the two of them, I think that's plenty. Councilman Geving - 'n1is is 165 acres. This is a conditional use penni t wherein Merle would have to cane back for another pennit. He certainly has a lot of roan out there to do sanething. I have no questions. Mayor Hamilton noved to approve the conditional use pennit request to allow the storage and repair of garbage vehicles, R. & W. Sanitation, Inc., Planning Case 84-13 with the stipulation that any expansion of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or an increase in the number of vehicles beyond what is represented in Request 84-13 must be approved by a conditional use pennit. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwcman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M::>tion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A CONTRAC'IOR' S YARD, 6420 :i?CMERS BLVD. IARRY KERBER : Barb ~ - The applicant, in his oPeration, has two Bobcats, a two-ton truck and a trailer and a small farm tractor. According to the applicant he uses this equir:ment approximately 50% of the time. At the Planning Ccmnission meeting Mr. Kerber indi- cated that he may want to expand the existing garage on-site and he is here tonight. I spoke with him this norning and he said he does intend to do that so if you should consider this for approval Mr. Kerber will be asking that you also consider the expansion of the existing garage so that he can house adequately the vehicles on- site. CouncilInan Horn - Is it necessary for the conditional use pennit to inclu:1e an extra building on the property? Barb ~ - Because of the nature of our recaI1reI1dation for expansion Mr. Kerber didn't want to have to care in a year or a year and a half down the road and have to pay a filing fee. Councilman Geving - I visited with Larry yesterday afternoon and he has irrrrediate plans to put up that garage and as long as we are going through this process I would not like to see him have to care back in the near future and pay a filing fee. Arr:i action tonight I would suggest that we inclu:1e in the notion that the garage is also a part of the conditional use penni t. Councilman Horn noved to approve the conditional use penni t request for a contractor's yard acti vi ties for Larry Kerber with the addition onto the garage, Planning Case 84-15. M::>tion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting November 19, 1984 -4- PROPOSED METES AND roUNDS SUBDNISION REQUEST, 6740 PCMERS BLVD. LEWIS W)ITALLA: Barb ~ - Mr. Woi talla is intending to subdi vide his two acre tract by splitting off the back acre. The property owner to the north at 6720 PCMers Blvd. intends to purchase that. '!he proposed split rreets the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance I requirem:mts and if you should consider this for approval we are recannending that the one acre piece be legally recorded with the property to the north. Councilman Geving - I just have a cc:mrent about the Carver County letter of October 16th, it says sanething about one parcel to be served by access onto County Road 17, I don't know how that could happen. Barb ~ - I think they thought that that back piece was going to be a separate building lot, therefore, the access to that lot would have to go over the existing driveway to the front lot but that's not the intent of the application. Councilman Geving IIDVed to approve the proposed metes and bounds subdivision request for Lewis Woitalla, Planning Case 84-23 subject to the consolidation and recording of the 1. 23 acre parcel with the property owned by Mr. Ravis. Motion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. '!be following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PIAT, 20 wr SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDNISION, IDRTH SIDE PIONEER '!RAIL, WEST OF 'lH 101, JCB PAR'lNERSHIP: Jerry Hendrickson was present.- Councilman Geving:: Youooderstand, Mr. Hendrickson, the request by Carver County to reserve the west roost 75 feet for the extension of PCMers Blvd. down to pioneer Trail? Jerry Hendrickson - Yes. Councilman Geving - I am going to presurre that all of the houses would be facing the street, not pioneer Trail, is that correct? The reason I say that is it is obvious to me that you would want to build on the road anyway but we have got so moch trouble with the sewage problems to the east of you there on pioneer Trail that we want to avoid that but there must be sane way then drainage of the water is going to have to go away fran that area so that it doesn't proceed on down into that low area to the east of you. I Barb ~ - '!he City Engineer talked with the applicant and responded to the con- cerns of the adjacent property CMners to the east of the plat. What they are doing is maintaining the existing drainage pattern and what Mr. Monk is requiring is a ditching to help the water flow, culvert it under the proposed road and out into the drainage retention area. Everything will be flowing west. Councilman Geving - It indicates that this is a 20 residential plat but I am won- dering why you made that detennination for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, it seems to me that they have enough roan there. Are you trying to get enough access onto the road that's Pioneer Drive here? Barb ~ - In the case of Lots 5 and 6, the concern was, as far as the width is concerned, about a second suitable site for a septic system if the first system failed, our purpose of the ordinance is to make sure we have enough room for a second site for a septic system. We wanted to make sure there was adequate separa- I tion between a well and the first drainfield, etc. so when we talked to the soil perk man he advised us there are several alternatives that can be done to solve that separation problem. He satisfied Bill and II1Yself to the point that we are not making that reccxnrendation. '!he Planning Ccmnission was concerned about the perk rate of the test and that's why Bill and II1Yself and George Donnelly met with the applicant's perk man. I I I Council Meeting November 19, 1984 -5- Councilman Geving - Other than changing the names of the streets, I don't have any other questions. Barb ~ - It is a fairly large subdivision and in case of an errergency it would be best to differentiate between the street names. Mayor Hamilton rroved to approve the preliminary plat for 20 lot single family resi- dential subdivision, JCB Partnership, Planning Case 84-7. l-btion seconded by Councilwanan Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwanan Watson, Council1ren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ZONING ORDINAOCE AMENDMENT RE)JUEST '10 ALIJ:1i/ OU'llXX)R S'roRAGE, WAREHOUSING AND mID S'IDRAGE AS CONDITIONAL USES IN C- 3 COMMERCIAL SERVICE DIS'lRICTS: Councilman Horn rroved approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow outdoor storage, warehousing and cold storage as conditional uses in the C-3 Cannercial Service District, Planning Case 84-5. l-btion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Council1ren Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN ESTATES SEWER PROBLEM: Lbn Ashworth - It did hit over a weekend and we do not pay for stand-by time so we have to look to, hopefully, finding scxneone at hare. We had a little rrore problem wi th this one in tenns of getting scxneone out there. I think it was maybe a half hour before we got sarebody there. The problem is corrected. It was a back up of a sewer line. There were two hares on Dakota Avenue. '!he claim has been suani tted to our insurance carrier. The adjuster was supposed to be out there today. He did not make it today. He will be out there taoorrow rrorning. They have been notified that if the City is a fault that our insurance coverage does cover that. If am confident that it was a main line back-up. It does not hapPen very often but when it does hapPen it is a real problem. PROPOSED IDTUS LAKE ESTATES BEACHIDT IMPROVEMENTS: Mayor Hamilton - 'lWo parts to it, variance request to install one additional dock and to allow the overnight storage of 10 watercraft, and conditional use pennit request to allow certain recreational beachlot improverrents. This request goes back a ways, I am not going to go all the way back to 1978. I don't think that's necessary. However, I will go back to August 20th when the Council considered this item and that evening there was a request for four items made. One was an addi- tional dock on the northern portion of the outlot. Another was for four sailOOat rroorings and that was approved. The third one was for the overnight storage of ten rrotorized boats and the fourth one was the continuation of the walkway along the north portion of their outlot and that was already allowed. There was a rrotion made that evening to deny items 1 and 3, the additional dock and the overnight storage of ooats. Final action to be delayed until the City Attorney sul:nri.tted findings and decisions as what came out of all the discussion that ensued that evening. The City Council received those findings and decisions, we made sare ccmrents aoout them. The Council did not take final action and still has not taken final action on those findings and decisions. We delayed action on them so that the City Manager and myself could meet with the Lotus Lake Estates H~ers Association and see if we couldn't find a suitable solution to the problem. One that would satisfy ooth sides. What we have I::efore us this evening is a proposal that the hOI'CeOWI1ers and myself and the City Manager have agreed upon. The options that we have before us this evening it seems to Ire, I am sure I'll be corrected, but this is the way I see it, we can have a motion to deny that anything is going to happen this evening really, that following discussions on the 20th rreant denial. There was a rrotion to deny on the 20th and if the Council feels that that rrotion was in fact to deny and not to continue this item any further, that is one thing that we have to decide. If Council Meeting Novemter 19, 1984 -6- the Council feels that way then there needs to be a m:>tion accepting the findings of fact. If the Council agrees that no final action has been taken, a m:>tion to that affect should also be expressed. The proposal before us can be interpreted as a new proposal since it asks for five m:>torized boats at the existing dock and a new dock I at the north end of their outlot. We can discuss that and vote on it right ncM at this meeting this evening. We can return that to the Planning Conmission and ask for their input. Last ti.rre they reviewed this item they chose to send it directly to the Council because they didn't want to deal with it and felt the Council should deal with it and I suspect that may be the case again. Also, this evening, if 1) which I had mentioned, if the m:>tion to deny was in fact in the Council's opinion the final decision, if that's accepted then six m:>nths must pass prior to a new pro- posal being sul::mi.tted which in my estimation would be February 18th meeting at the earliest, at which ti.rre there would be a public hearing and we would review this item again. As I see it, those are our options. That's what has happened since August 20th. '!he Council at this ti.rre needs to decide what we would like to do this evening. Councilman Horn - One clarification on the Planning Commission action, it was my recollection that they had voted on it and reqtEsted denial unanirrously. Mike 'lhorrpson - As I recall, we denied it. , Barb ~ - It's in the last part of your attachments. Councilwanan Watson - '!be Planning Comrnission held a public hearing on the petition August 8th. The Comrnission voted unanirrously to deny the Lotus Lake Estates Recreational Beachlot improverrents in a m:>tion by J. Tharpson and seconded by Albee. Councilman Geving - I would like to ask at this ti.rre since we don't have the legal I services tonight, I am a little disturbed that we don't have our legal counsel because I think this is a very important issue but I think we need to ask ourselves and clarify before we proceed with this, whether or not we are following all of the reccmnended procedures that we deal with as a City Council and that we will not violate any procedure by concluding with this issue and I would like to at this tirre ask Don Ashworth for that opinion. Mayor Hamilton - It's up to the Council to decide whether or not we felt that the m:>tion made by Pat Swenson on August 20th was in fact a m:>tion to deny. If that's what the Council felt our action was, then there is nothing to deal with. Don Ashworth - '!hat is Roger's opinion. Recognizing that that question would care up I did pose that exact question to Roger. I had him go back through those minutes twice. He is slightly disappointed with how that was actually worded in the minutes from the standpoint that the finding of fact recarmendation came fran the City Attorney. He had anticipated that you may end up in a court case with this par- ticular item fran one side or the other and that the City would be best served by placing those findings into a written form. If the Council determines that the action was final on August 20th then those findings of fact really mean nothing fran September lOth. In other words it was his intent in making that recannendation that the Council's position be known but in fact the action of denial would be based on the findings of fact rather than having your vote occur first then you cane along later and decide why it was you voted that way. He has a problem with that. His I opinion is that it is your decision as to was it your intent on August 20th to see this item closed out that evening or was it your intent to go to Septemter lOth. Mayor Hamilton and I have talked on this item so he was aware of Roger's carments and Tern had again suggested that your first vote on this item be, what was your intent and however you answer that you will be following your procedures. In other I I I Council Meeting Noveml::er 19, 1984 -7- words, if your intent was not to see it go any further, then your procedures would be sirrply that i tern would be done and we would have no other business here this evening except to agree to the findings of fact. Again, you would be making those findings in a retrospect manner. If, on the other side your decision is that is was not your intent to close it out that evening, then all options that were OPen to you on August 20th are still OPen to you tonight. Councilman Geving - You indicated Mr. Mayor, that if that were true this would go reck to the Planning Cannission? Mayor Hamilton - If, in fact, we decide that our decision on August 20th was final, then they could re-apply on February 18th to the Planning Ccrnni ss ion . What the Council need to have clearly in mind is hopefully you know what your intent was on August 20th. You voted for the notion which read: "Councilwanan ~nson noved to deny the request for the variance 84-8, items 1 and 3, on the basis of the fact that they are not in confonni ty with the existing ordinance and there is no basis for variance in the criteria setforth and based on the discussion this evening. The City Attorney will prepare findings of fact and set out the reasons for the denial." The thing that is missing out of there is the discussion that followed the notion which my recollection was that it would renain OPen and if you recall Peter even brought that point up that the whole item would be concluded until the findings of fact were presented and it would not be closed. I want each of you to carrnent on whether you thought it was final or not. Councilman Horn - We always tell people things are not final in a sense. We act on each notion but we always have methods of bringing subjects up again. We have a six rronth waiting period and they care again for consideration to see if there are new facts involved. I felt the proposal that we were dealing with that evening which was for the ten boats, the extra dock, the sailboats and whatever, it was closed that evening by this notion. '!bat was certainly my intent and understanding that this criteria of findings was exactly what the City Attorney had recarrnended to nore solidly document our reason for 'denial of the petition. Councilwanan Watson - I guess basically I agree with Clark in that we voted on that ten boat proposal that was turned down unanirrously and the continuation seemed to be for those findings that Roger felt we should have in order to reck up our decision at that time. I guess, I agree with that and at the same feel that I guess the six rronths is written in granite I suppose and it has to proceed in that manner. Is that true? I do see this as a new proposal. I don't know if it necessarily has to wait the six rronths to go back to the Planning Ccrnnission. Councilman Horn - Can't that be waived by a vote of the Council? Councilman Geving - '!he vote I made on August 20th I felt was a clear and final decision to deny the request for that particular proposal. We always handle one proposal at a time and I think that it would be unfair to our citizens not to give them the right to corrnent in a public forum on a new proposal. I think it should go reck through the Planning Cannission and through the procedures that we have established for these kinds of things. I know it takes time but I think that's the way this should be handled. My decision on August 20th was a finn denial. Mayor Hamilton - Based on what my recollection was of all the discussion that ensued after the notion was made it was that the action of that evening was not final and that we were going to, after we received the attorney's carments, review it again and be certain that that was exactly what we wanted to do and then when we did review those carrnents we didn't take action again at that time because we felt that perhaps if we talked to the hareowners group that we could reach a mutual understanding, scxrething that could be discussed again. Council Meeting November 19, 1984 -8- Mayor Hamilton - It wasn't my intent to make it final. I still don't think it's final. Peter Beck - I remember that August 20th meeting, I asked, is this final, should I I even rother to care back at the next rreeting and I ranemter real clearly saying, we haven't adopted our findings yet, you should probably be here and then I came and detected that both fran my clients and fran the Council that there might be SCIre flexibility and SCIre roan to resolve this without everyone having to incur a whole lot rrore expense. We did meet with the Mayor and the Mayor made a proposal which I don't really think is a new proposal. Everything in it is contained in, it's a reduction of what we had. There is nothing new. It's just a reduction of what we did have, offered by the Mayor as a way to resolve this without any further cost or expense to the City of the people fran IDtus Lake Estates. That's how we have been proceeding until today and I still think it's a good. suggestion, a reasonable one, a good way to resolve this without having any party required to bear any rrore expenses or invest any rrore tiIre. Mayor Hamilton - I need a rrotion, based on what I am hearing the Council rrembers say, to make this official, that the Council is in fact adopting the findings and decisions. Councilman Horn - Were those ever rrodified. There were SCIre questions ai:x>ut those. Don Ashworth - You made rrotifications to those. Councilman Horn - I don't think we ever got a final version of those. Mayor Hamilton - Regardless, what I am hearing the Council say is that the minutes of August 20th are approved then the findings should be approved to make the action final. I Don Ashworth - The Council did not vote on the conditional use amendrrent for the four rroorings. It was approved as a variance. You did not review it as a City Council because it went to the Board of Adjustrrents and Appeals but as a part of amending the conditional use penni t your rrotion should be amending the conditional use pennit to allow for four rroorings and to adopt the findings and decision as sub- mitted to the City Council on September lOth and as rrodified that evening and that should pick up any changes that you did make that we have not incorporated. Councilman Horn - Same of those as I recall are just questions. I think Dale had a few qtEstions ai:x>ut where the catprehensi ve plan was addressed. We didn't get a response back from Roger, at least I don't recall that we did. I think we need a final version of the findings and intent fran Roger based on the input before we can approve them. Councilwanan Watson - I can't remember exactly what the questions where fran that tiIre. Councilman Horn - I think the only part that is open is the approval of the findings of intent. Mayor Hamilton - '!he decision portion, you agree with. Councilman Horn - Yes. Councilman Geving - I eon' t think you are going to get a better version of that September 10th findings and decisions. I I I I Council Meeting November 19, 1984 -9- Mayor Hamilton - The evening that we discussed this I still feel that item #8 was the center of our discussion because we really hadn't discussed water quality as part of that whole discussion. If we just deleted that whole section it probably would answer roost of the questions that CClJ.re up. Don Ashworth - Realize the issue at this point is really rooot because, again, if the decision was that it was closed off and a final decision was made on August 20th then you really can't be adopting findings of fact on September 10th as to why you voted the way you did. The necessity to finalize this really is not there. Councilman Horn - I guess I don It understand the original purpose. Don Ashworth - The original intent, it's a matter of how the rootion was worded and staff's ability to convey what the attorney was recarmending. He was recoomending that you rot take final action that night. You established the point that you wished to see included in a findings of fact docllIrent and have that presented back so then your final decision would be based on a docllIrent. It doesn't change the vote and it doesn't change the minutes as a valid representation of what it was you did. Councilwoman Watson - Regardless of these facts and findings in September, the vote took place in August and I didn I t see that waiting for these made the vote non- existant. Mayor Hamilton - We don't need to vote on the findings and decision and by a three to one vote the Council has said that they agree that the vote that they took on August 20th was final. Councilwoman Watson - Where is there any allowance for the process to begin on this roore quickly than six roonths because I do rarember the discussion that night, I don't think that discussion changed the vote or made that vote on the ten boats and stuff null and void but I do rerrember the discussion. I do rarember the Mayor saying that he was going to talk to them. I can rerrember all these things and so I have a little trouble with six roonths and all that business about starting that part of the procedure again because we did have that discussion. It should go back procedurally but not necessarily wait six roonths. Barb ~ - Under the variance provisions in the Zoning Ordinance it says, no appli- cation for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six roonths fran the date of such order or denial except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. If the board finds that there are new grounds of evidence or a change of conditions, then the case could be reheard before that six roonth period. Counci1wanan Watson - '!hey could begin the process again right now by caning to the Board of Adjustments and A};pea1s for that finding. Councilman Geving - I would propose that that be done with the waiver of the fee for the Board of Adjusbrents and A};pea1s. I think that's appropriate. Barb ~ - That same clause is in the conditional use provision as well. Mayor Hamilton - The Board of Adjusbrents and A};pea1s will meet in two weeks. Council Meeting November 19, 1984 -10- Peter Beck - We will consider that possibility and weigh it. Really, the proposal tonight I presented to the group as a way to resolve this without incurring any rrore expenses. If we go back and start over we run the risk that the board will say it is I not changed circumstances, it appears that there is a procedural defect in other words, or it could not go with the proposal and you have the Planning Ccmnission and then the Council at least one rrore board and Council rreeting and then another if there is going to be rrore findings. It is getting to the point I think there is the possibility the group may decide that they will take their chances. In other words the five boats was proposed by the Mayor and accepted by the group as a way to resolve it weighing the costs of proceeding further against the benefit gained by fi ve rrore boats. I have a sense that at this point they just go back, we have got a denial with no valid findings of fact, we might as well go ahead and take our chances with that but I am just letting you know what I think are going to be sc:xn= of the considerations. We were hoping to cc:xn= here tonight and get a sense for the fact that we could resolve it. It seerred. like a reasonable proposal. Councilman Horn - What fee are you talking about? We are offering to waive the Board of Adjustments and AI;peals fee. Peter Beck - My fees. Councilman Horn - They don't need you to bring their case. Peter Beck - I think the events of the last six rronths have indicated that they pro- bably do. Georgette Sosin - I have a sense that sc:xn=how we shouldn't be speaking, either one of us, either Mr. Beck or myself while there is a rrotion on the floor. I appreciate I your recognizing us. I do want to say that the September lOth rreeting was not attended by anyone of us because we felt, everyone who was at that rreeting and fran all that you read in the newspaper, the sentence had already been decided and it was not necessary to be here for that finding of fact reading and the tiIre element that you are discussing is an important thing because it is a new proposal and I think it needs to be looked into for lots of different reasons. Don Ashworth - I think there should be a rrotion. A rrotion to agree that the position presented on August 20th was the final position of the City Council. Councilwanan Watson rroved to agree that the position presented on August 20th was the final position of the City Council. AI;prove rrodifying the conditional use permit to inclwe four rroorings. fution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton voted no. Motion carried. Councilman Geving rroved to adjourn. M:>tion seconded by Councilman Horn. '!he following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. M:>tion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I