Loading...
1983 10 03 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. the Pledge to the Flag. The meeting was opened with Members Present Councilwoman Watson, Councilman Geving, Councilman Horn, and Councilwoman Swenson. Staff Present Bill Monk and Don Ashworth. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda with the following additions: Jaycee Liquor License Request and Boat Access Update. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Item (c) Council Compensation, was removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilman Geving moved to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Parking Restriction Requests: RESOLUTION #83-44 1. Lotus Lake Estates Entrance Road 2. Dakota Avenue (Highway 5 to Chanhassen Estates) b. Finance Department Transfers and Closings. RESOLUTION #83-45. d. Approve Plans and Specifications, 201 Program. RESOLUTION #83-46. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. COUNCIL COMPENSATION: Councilman Horn - I tend to relate salary to population because it is a per capita kind-or-contribution. It's just like in business, a manager who manages 100 people is compensated much greater than one who manages ten. Councilman Geving moved to place on first reading an ordinance amending compensation for members of the Chanhassen City Council. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: SUBDIVISION OF LAKE SUSAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Councilwoman Swenson moved to waive ~visitor presentation procedure and consider the subdivision request. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #83-47: Councilwoman Swensn moved the adoption of a resolution Waiving Compliance with Subdivision Regulations conveying Parcel B of 20.9 acres and Parcel C of 7.1 acres to be separated from Lake Susan South PUD. Resolution seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, October 3, 1983 -2- PUBLIC SAFETY: Sheriff Jack Hendrickson was present to discuss the organi- zational chart/duties/responsibilities of the Sheriff's Office and answer questions. PUBLIC HEARING I 1984 MUNICIPAL BUDGET INCLUDING PROPOSED USES OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. There being no one present from the public, Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. 1984 BUDGET INCLUDING PROPOSED USES OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: COUncilwoman Swenson - We have discussed this so many times before I guess all I really want-rD do is to bring to your attention the last paragraph on the second page of the Manager's letter. For as long as I have been involved in the City we have always left the maintenance of the streets something that we have been kind of playing ball with and it always gets cut off and if we don't do something about them pretty soon and establish some kind of a program the people of this City are going to wind up with some horrendous assessments or else they are going to continue to lose wheels as they go around corners. This can be done with less than two mills in which case we would have to levy an assessment on the property owners. At the same time I think we have to consider that we have got to have a Fire Marshal at least part time. We are also obligated, it seems to me, to see that things do get done so that our citizens are protected from nonconformance of the fire ordinances. The Fire Station re-roofing is involved. We have to have that. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve an increased levy of two mills to be designated in the following manner: $4,000 for part time Fire Marshal, $16,000 for re-roofing the Fire Station, and, $100,000 for a seal coating program. For the following four years, the entire $120,000 would be dedi- cated to street seal coating program. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. I Councilman ~~ - I think it's a lot of nothing. I think you are asking the Council, Mrs. Swenson, to dedicate two mills for the next five years to another Council and you are obligating that Council for a considerable amount of money. In the past we have paid for all the street assessments through benefitting property owners. This system has worked and I believe that is the way it should be. To skim off $20,000 to take care of some of these other issues I have no problem with but to dedicate $100,000 this year and $120,000 for the next four years is getting into the pockets of the people that run this City and who live in this City and I don't believe that that is the way we are operating. If I am going to be a Council Member next year and the next four years I don't want to have to be committed to a budget line item for $120,000. I want to start each budget year with zero and work upwards. I feel very strongly about this. I know we have streets that need seal coating and I know that they do deteriorate but I sometimes feel that City Staff is trying to run many of the things that are costing us a lot of money in this City. I am not in favor of budgeting two mills for the next five years. Councilman Horn - Why do we have to appropriate it for a five year period at this tim~Why couldn't we do it for a one year program? I I I ouncil Meeting October 3, 1983 -3- I Don Ashworth - Legally you can't levy it for a five year program. I think what Pat is saying is that the money that would be received in anyone year would be dedicated for street purposes. If you are into a program, you are telling people in advance we are into this program but it's up to each Council each year to actually approve the levy. You will only be acting on 1984. Councilman Horn - We are not commiting any future Council IS to anything. Councilman Geving - That was the motion as I heard it. Don Ashworth - You can establish a five year program and the allocation of monies for that, in other words if you to fund all five years literally tonight, you could do that. You can't bind a future Council. Mayor Hamilton - Next year the Council could rescind it. Councilman Geving - That was the point that I was trying to make. Councilwoman Swenson - Is that the way it's handled under the Park and Recreation five year programs and other programs. Don Ashworth - Each year is a separate year. In establishing a program you are trying to tell people what it is that you are going to be doing in the future. It is a best guess as to what will be done two years from now. Councilwoman Swenson - I shall amend my motion then to in accordance with the City Manager's comments, for funds to be expended in 1984. Councilwoman Watson - I guess what concerns me is last year we dropped the mill rate and now we are going to up it two. I guess in my mind I could see uping it one and getting the program going but we know we have other things that are going to have to start being retired through taxation now. Councilman Horn - If you look at the calculations here, it looks like we are going t~y $2.50 per lineal foot street which is approximately $14,000 per mile, if you take that over the period that says that to cover up all the streets it would take somewhere over $500,000. If you don't cover these streets for $2.50 per lineal foot, five to ten years down the road you are talking about $40.00 per lineal foot to repair them. This City has always bragged about keeping its taxes low but I bet you if you look at a per person assessment roll this City has got to be one of the highest in the area and I don't think that's right. I have to look at the bottom line dollars whether it's a G.O. type of thing or whether it's an assessment, I don't think it's fair to our citizens to say it's the other guys problem, he can fix it. We have trouble collecting those assessments. We can't get them collected. We have to go to court over them and it costs us money. Councilman Geving - We already have $18,000 in the budget for this purpose. Councilman Horn - That would cover a little over a mile. Councilwoman Swenson - It's always is an unpleasant thing. I concur with Councilman Horn's assessment is that we have really always bent over back- wards to try to keep the tax levy down, i.e. having reduced it one mill last year which didn't have to be done. Had we not done it maybe we could have taken that money and put it into a program like this. Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -4- Councilman Geving - I think you are asking for a Cadillac when you could drive a Chevrolet, Mrs. Swenson. A one mill levy would be more than enough. Mayor Hamilton - I have given this a heck of a lot of thought and 1 guess I nobody is more opposed to increasing the taxes than I am but there comes a time when I think you have to decide what is best for all of the citizens and one of the most over-riding items in this issue is the need for a Fire Marshal. We are faced with a rather tenuous situation right now without having a Fire Marshal. New buildings and existing buildings are going without fire inspection because we frankly haven't the funds to pay someone to do the job. Should we have a major fire in one of our local community buildings that entertains hundreds of people nightly there could be a major disaster. We aren1t inspecting those buildings currently and we need to do that. The roads are certainly deteriorating. There probably isn't a street in the whole City that isn't full of holes and cracks and absolutely falling apart. 1 agree with Dale some that we have always assessed in the past. I am not sure that that's a proper practice because 1 think all of the residents use nearly all the streets. I certainly agree with Dale that I would much rather pay $2.50 a lineal foot than I would $40.00 a lineal foot. Is ther further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman ~orn - Aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. I Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Councilman Q~~ - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Motion carries. Don Ashworth - The action before you tonight is the adoption of the budget. RESOLUTION #83-48: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution Adopting the 1984 Budget, the 1984 Federal Revenue Sharing Budget, and Establishing Tax Levies for 1984 with the change previously adopted. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. Councilman Q~~ - What did we decide to do with the balance of $11,000 in Fund 462? Don Ashworth - It has not been addressed this evening. We are still recom- mending the Council consider what it was originally intended for. If you look upstairs right now you will see that there are maps laying allover back in the engieering area. Most of those dollars are related to engi- neering equipment. There is a humidification for the City Hall on there as well. We are having problems with the duplicating equipment because there is no humidity control in the building. If the Council would consider that recommendation before any purchases were made the item would be back in from of you but it's not being considered as a part of this budget. Councilman Geving - Let's take a look at that in the future. I I I I Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -5- Mayor Hamilton - Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Councilman Geving - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Motion carries. Councilman Geving - I am opposed to the two mill levy. I think one would have been sufficient. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the September 12, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the September 28, 1983, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the September 14, 1983, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. The Swenson, GAMBLING ORDINANCE, FINAL READING: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve an Ordinance Licensing and Regulating the Conduct of Bingo and Gambling Adopting State Law and Providing for a License and License Fees. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #83-49: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution Establishing Bingo/Gambling License Fees. Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIDE YARD VARIANCE REQUEST, 222 CHAN VIEW: Mr. and Mrs. Ron Roeser are seeking-approval of a ten fo~front and 8 foot side yard setback variance to construct a 20 x 16 foot attached garage onto the east side of their existing residence. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended the Council deny the 10 foot front yard setback variance and approve the 8 foot side yard setback variance. Councilman Geving - This issue involves a one foot side yard petition, so that really instead of 8 feet it should have been 9 feet. I am referring to attachment #2, it has a proposed garage on there and shows a 16 x 20 foot garage, that if the variances were approved would come within one foot Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -6- of the east property line. After looking at the property, and I think one thing that was not brought out that evening, the land where you see the proposed garage slants to the north and if that garage were placed in that position as shown a certain amount of fill would be required to place that I foundation in there. After discussing it with the board and the people that were in attendance the motion was to decrease the front yard setback to zero so that the structure, if it is built, would have to meet our ordi- nance requirements of a 30 foot setback. There would be no variance given for the front yard since the structure would not have a variance required. The entire structure must be at least 30 feet from the street. What we were recommending to the Council was one variance and that variance being an 8 foot variance for the side yard setback. Councilman Horn - What is the distance between the proposed structure and the adjacenr-hOuse? Councilman Gevi~ - I believe it's about 12 feet to the neighbor's home. Councilman Horn - Does the fire department give any recommendations on distance for-pfoper safety between structures? Q~ ~~hworth - I have not seen anything. Bill Monk - With rated walls you can basically get within five feet without ~m~of a problem but I have never seen a recommendation from them. Councilwoman Swenson - My main question is, if a neighbor now or someone in the future should decide to put up a fence along that lot line it would seem that Mr. Roeser is going to have considerable amount of difficulty I maintaining that side of his garage. My major problem is that I don't believe that I have ever agreed to less than, unless it's a new develop- ment, less than five foot setbacks for side yard and in this particular case I am wondering what is the objection to putting the garage at least past the neighbors house. I understand they have a kitchen window that looks out there and the bedrooms face that wall. Councilman Gevin~ - The proposal is to move it approximately ten feet north from where you see it on the schmatic. Councilwoman Swenson - Would that be beyond the rear of the adjacent house? --- Councilman Geving - Yes, I would say it's very close. I would say that certainly could be a provision of our condition that that could be moved far enough back. I think what we are asking here, when we look at this as a variance, he is asking for a variance on the front yard, as long as he meets that requirement for a 30 foot setback then he could technically place that at the 30 foot mark. As a part of our negotiation here tonight then possibly it should moved even further to the north, another three to four feet or whatever it takes to clear the property line of his neighbor to the east. I think that is a good suggestion. Councilman Horn - There was an initial objection from the neighbor to the east, was that-resolved with the modified proposal? I ~~~ Wittenberg: I still do, for many reasons. One, I don't believe that gutters are going to help. He says he will take care of the gutters now, maybe Mr. Roeser will do it, maybe he will sell in two years and the next party won It take care of them. I believe it's a fire hazard to a point. I I I , . Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -7- There are handicapped children living in that home now and they can take care of their own up to a point but you can't dictate to a neighbor what he can put in his garage. I you go back further, without knowing the lay of the land, is he going to have to fill and if he does, is this fill and the water going to run on to the backyard property to the east? I guess I would have to check that a little bit further. Councilman Horn - It looks to me like we really don't know the impact of what's it going to be as far as fill and drainage. The question is if there is fill brought in are we going to change the whole drainage pattern? Councilman Geving - The fill that I was talking about is further to the north where this proposed garage is. Where this is being moved back now, whatever it is 10 to 15 feet, I don't believe it would require fill. I don't believe there would be any additional runoff. If anything the runoff should again go to the north. Councilman Horn - I misunderstood which was the proposed. Councilman Geving - Cross out where it says IIproposed garagell. The real proposal is where it says IIproposed garage II down at the bottom with the arrow. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals is recommending to eliminate the front yard variance. One thing that we are very very much opposed to is that overhang so whatever kind of structure is built there cannot overhang hardly at all. When we talked about an 8 foot variance that roof line is going to have to come down and practically drop right off here because you can't have an overhang or it will destroy the throught that we had in giving this 8 foot variance. We have to have a property line that is respected by your neighbor and we want you to be as far back from that property line as possible. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals agreed that we were recommending an 8 foot variance which means that your struc- ture would be two feet from the property line and that the overhang from that garage should not over hang so greatly that it would also over hang on your neighbors property or to the property line. We all recognize you have to have some overhang. Councilman Horn - Where is the water going to drain from the gutters? Mayor Hamilton - You could run it to the driveway. Your driveway now drains towards the street. Mr. Wittenberg - Right now I have got leakage in the basement with no garage or anything there. Mayor Hamilton - I get water in my basement, too. It's not because of anybody's driveway. Councilwoman Swenson - I notice that this driveway is on a slant so the condition would have to be that it could not be less than two feet at the northeastern point. I just talked with the neighbor today and as I understood it the major problem, perhaps I was mistaken, was having the edifice directly adjacent and your objection would be somewhat appeased by moving it back north which is what we are talking about now. It would still be two feet from the lotline but the front of the garage will be beyond the northwest corner of your house. The main reason for not going back any farther than this is because of the terrain of the land and the requirement of the fill. What we are trying to do is to come up with the most equitable answer for both of you. Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -8- QQ~ Schmieg - Is it normally a reason variances are granted is because of some sort of a hardship or a difficulty with a lot? Councilman Geving - One of the reasons. Don Schmieq - I find it a little bit difficult to understand that by virtue of not wanting a longer driveway is the only thing I can see that we wouldn't move that structure to the back of the lot. Granted, you wouldn't have to fill around the garage if you put a foundation in. All you would have to do is build block up and fill the inside in and it would be sitting out there with the back end two foot or three foot off the ground. I don It see where the problem with filling would be a viable solution because you could do it without fill. The lot could stay exactly the way it is outside the garage, flat just like it is now. I don It see where by moving it back and over five feet to give both property owners a chance to use a variance by virtue of giving one property owner 8 foot of that ten you eliminate any possibility of the neighbor doing anything with his lot. If they were to put an addition on the house of any sort I am sure the Council would not entertain any type of an idea to get their house, right now it IS presently ten foot from the lot line, by virtue of giving the neighbor eight foot of his side I doubt that you would give equal consideration to the next neigh- bor. I think you are kind of putting the guilt on the guy that went there first. Had the neighbor gone there first and asked for eight feet then you would deny Mr. Roeser his eight feet. If you give Mr. Roeser eight I doubt that you would give the next property owner eight on the other side. Councilwoman Watson - That was what I was going to say. When we do something and get so close to the property line we are placing the entire burden for a reasonable distance between buildings with one resident. Mayor Hamilton - It also seems that you have to look at each structure Tndependently and it would seem to me, I don't know how they are going to try to put an addition on the house on the corner it would seem to me that this by virtue of the way the structure sits now and of the property they are going to build to the north not to the west. Mr. Wittenbe~ - I can't go to the north because that's where my garage is. Mayor Hamilton - If you wanted to put an addition on that house you could certainly move that garage. Mr. Wittenberg - It we wanted to tear our building down and have to go further north there would be a garage in the way. Mayor Hamilton - Itls on his property. It's not in your way if you are going to build north. Councilman Geving - The Board and this Council has to look at what's hap- pening now and try to plan for the future but what you are talking about is a big "what if II and we have to look at that "what if II when it becomes reality and we are faced with that situation when you give us a variance request. At that time we would make the decision whether or not to grant you a building permit to add on to your home. We have to look at Mr. Roeser's request, that's the only one that's in front of us tonight and weigh its merits. I I I I I I Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -9- Councilman Geving moved to approve the eight foot side yard variance to the Planning Case #83-13 for the Ronald Roeser property, 222 Chan View, with the condition that if the structure is built it must maintain proper drainage with gutters moving the water away from the property owner to the east. That the building would be set far enough to the north so it would be placed further north than the northwest corner of the Wittenberg home. The applicant file a Certificate of Survey showing the proposed placement of the garage prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving. Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman Horn voted no. Motion failed. Councilman Horn - I guess I have to examine what a variance means in this situation ana-T look at the Zoning Ordinance as a way to protect adjacent property owners not so much as what allowing an individual property can do but I am very willing to accept variances in a case where all the neighbors are amenable don It feel aggrieved to it. I don It think that's the case with this situation. I think that's the reason that we have Zoning Ordinances to give neighbors the opportunity to voice their objections. We can deviate when all of those objections are resolved and I don't think that's the case here. Councilwoman Swenson - I really am having a major problem with this. The main problem I have is the granting of an eight foot variance on a side yard and this really bothers me, five I could take but eight just really bothers me. SIDE YARD SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE, LOT AREA VARIANCE, LOT 26, BLOCK ~ RED ITDARPOTNT: - - Councilman Geving - One of the things I asked staff to do for tonights meeting was to provide to us a map of the area because the petitioners brought in a number of people's certification that they were in agreement with the request and they are listed in the packet but I wanted to know where they live because I wanted to know if they were adjacent neighbors or people who have lots that were similar to theirs on Red Cedar Point. If you look at attachment 7 and what I did with my attachment 11, I put a pen- cil mark on those lots that were approximately 40 feet and many of those people that are shown on attachment 7 are in those 40 foot lots so they have situations that are very similar to the Parsons. This is a very big precedent setting type of situation. We always, on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, look at the neighborhood itself. The con- figuration of the neighborhood. We more or less request that they ask their neighbors if they would sell them a piece of their land and there is a piece of property to the east of this, Mrs. Rask owns, and she flatly said, no way would she sell a piece of land to make this parcel large enough for us to consider. Some of the things that were later brought out by our attorney in researching this and the fact of the matter is the Parsons have owned this land for years and years, they have paid taxes on it and they were assessed an area charge for the sewer and water that went through there and so they have had a considerable amount of money that they have paid to this City and the County for that benefit. We, at our meeting, decided two to one to deny this variance request and again, it1s a very difficult situation because you have several variances being requested and if you look at 8,658 square foot lot area variance, I don't believe that we have ever granted a building permit on a piece of land in Chanhassen less than 10,000 square feet. This one here is roughly 6,342 square feet. Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -10- Councilman Horn - Would the property owners on either side be willing to buy it? John Parsons - I remember a year ago when this was brought up before you~ I The-question was raised again as to whether someone would buy it and at that time both parties on either side said no they would not. Councilman Horn - Is it actually being pursued for sale? John Parsons - We own Lot 41 and one time considered selling that and we caTTed up a real estate firm and they said forget it, you can't build on it. Mayor Hamilton - This is really a difficult one to deal with. I guess I have to look at reports that we received from our legal counsel that tells us a variance must be granted, if without it, the property cannot be put to any reasonable use, the property owner's own action does not create the need for a variance~ granting it will not cause substantial harm. I sup- pose somebody could say substantial harm could be somehow they could deter- mine that their property value on either side is going to be reduced by some amount because a smaller home was put in there. 1111 ask Al, if you put a smaller home in there, do you think it would cause a problem selling a home on either side when it's a nice new home. ~ Klingelhutz - I think you can put up a pretty nice split level. I don't know what the value of the homes on either side of him are and what the size of them are. Sure if you let the home run down it would have an effect on the value of the homes next to it but if it's a new home and well main- I tained and well constructed, I don It think it should have much effect on it. It seems to me that there was one lot on Red Cedar Point, Ric Anding's lot~ is that a 40 foot lot or 50 foot lot? He did build a very nice home on it and I can It see where that would detract from the value of his neigh- bors. Sure you have got to build a home a little different than you would on a norma 1 lot. Councilman Geving - There are about 14 lots like that that are open right now on the point that I saw when I looked at my map. There are about seven without homes. Mayor Hamilton - I would like to ask the folks here who gave us this peti- tion-tonight, the only thing that your petition says is that you are opposed to the variance request, is there some reason why you are opposed to it? We don't want to look out our window and see this home right next to us. Councilman Horn - I have more objection to the lot size than I do the side yar~varTãnc~- A lot size like that on a lake, to me, is a big problem. Councilman Geving - I think the big difference here is the Parsons bought this in good faith years and years ago and if economic conditions had been right for them they would have had a house on this particular property. I May~ Hamilton - There seems to be several neighbors against it. There are certainly some in favor of it. A 6~300 square foot lot is much smaller than what we have even considered in the past. I I I Council Meeting, October 3, 1983 -11- Don Ashworth - In terms of the lot area, they would have to meet things such as side yard. This application does not meet the side yard which is a basis for denial. You should not deny it on the basis of lot area. Councilman Horn - Why can It we do that if we have a requirement of 15,000 square feet~hy is that any different than the side yard? Councilwoman Watson - Because it is a lot of record. Councilwoman Swenson - If this were a split lot or if it were in a new division someplace, there is no question that it would be denied. The fact that the lot has been there for umteen years, I guess I have some problem denying it when faced with the attorney's recommendation. Councilman Geving - I wish I knew tonight how many similar lots we have like this on Red Cedar Point so that if this becomes a precedent are we going to look at five or six or seven more. Councilwoman Swenson - I know that since I have been involved the Council and the Planning Commission have moved towards trying to combine lots in order to increase the size and this one happens to be sandwiched in between. Mrs. Rask was at the meeting last Tueday night and she defi- nitely said that she would buy that lot. They have offered to buy it and the Parsons said no. Mrs. Parsons - They have never made me an offer. Mayor Hamilton - It would seem to me that when you have this many neighbors that are opposed to an issue and, hopefully, you could be somewhat sen- sitive to the needs of your fellow citizens and neighbors. They have a piece of property that they have a difficult situation with and we could certainly deny this for several reasons. I think the neighbors in that area also owe it to the owners of this property to approach them and to ask them for a buying price or a selling price from them. They are sitting here with a piece of property that they are attempting to build a house on, legitimately so, and everybody in the neighborhood seems to be against it for one reason or another and you are virtually telling those people that they have a piece of property that is worthless and you don1t want any thing to do with them or their property. I think you owe it to them to approach them to see if you can't reach some agreement to purchase it and if not, I think we need to reconsider this item. I would move that we deny the side yard setback variance request for Lot 26, Block 1, Red Cedar Point. Councilman Geving - I would second your motion, Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Swenson - Could we table this for a specific period of time giving the neighbors an opportunity to get together with the Parsons or see if they can resolve this rather than having to make a definite denial or acceptance of this? Mayor Hamilton - Either way is going to accomplish the same thing. like to see an attempt made by yourselves and by your neighbors to property. I think they will find out rather quickly how receptive neighbors are to their selling it. I would sell the the Council Meeting October 3, 1983 -12- Councilman Geving - I think that if Mrs. Rask or the Morgans are really serious about objecting to this piece of property and the potential for a home here, this is their opportunity to buy it. If you don It want neigh- I bors to the east of you ever, buy this piece of property and be done with it. It's easy for me to say but that's a solution to the problem. Mayor Hamilton - Any further comments? If not, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Councilman Horn - Aye. ---~---. ~- Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Councilwoman Watson - Aye. --- Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. HRA APPOINTMENT: Commissioner Tim Russell has resigned as a member of the HRA. Mayor Hamilton moved that Mike Niemeyer be contacted to see if he would serve on the HRA. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. AGREEMENT ADOPTING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING OFTA"XINCRTIfËNTTRANSACTIONS: Mayor Hamilton moved adoption-or-fhe-agreement between the City of Chanhassen and I the Chanhassen HRA establishing procedures for accounting and reporting of tax increment transactions. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. JAYCEES LIQUOR LICENSE: The Jaycees are requesting a liquor license to seTT~er at the Instant Web Open House on October 8th and at the Jaycee Oktoberfest on October 22nd. Councilman Horn moved to approve a liquor license for October 8th and 22nd subject to verification of insurance. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. BOAT ACCESS UPDATE: The City Manager reported there has been no word from the-State-as to their participation. This item will be on a future Council agenda. Councilwoman Swenson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager I