Loading...
1983 06 06 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 6, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilman Horn and Councilwoman Watson. Councilman Geving and Councilwoman Swenson were absent. Jim Thompson, Planning Commission, Don Ashworth, and Bill Monk were also present. The meeting was opened with the pledge to the flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton asked if any member wished to remove any items from the Consent Agenda. Councilman Horn noted he would not be in attendance at the June 21 and June 27 meetings. Councilman Horn moved to approve the Consent Agenda pursuant to the recommendations of the City Manager: a. Special Joint Meeting with Chaska/Eden Prairie/Chanhassen City Councils Status Report, Transportation Technical Committee. June 27th. b. RESOLUTION #83-28 in Support of Grant Application for Funds Appropriated through Federal Jobs Bill of 1983. c. Refer Ordinance 45 (Regulating Development in the Unsewered Areas of the City) to Planning Commission for Public Hearing. d. Reschedule June 20th Council Meeting to June 21st. e. Tour South Lotus Lake Boat Access, Bloomberg Property, 7:00 p.m. June 7 t h. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. TEICH DUMP: Dave Halla appeared before the Council to find out what measures have been taken or are going to be taken to clean up the dump area. This item will be on the June 21st Council agenda. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD MAY 23, 1983 BOARD OF REVIEW Mayor Hamilton: This is a continuation of the public hearing of May 23rd to review property tax assessments. On May 23rd this board heard input from residents. We have requested that the County Assessor supply us with specific responses back to your questions and your particular parcels that you are concerned about. We did receive some information. Some of it was not complete enough for us to probably make a comprehensive evaluation but nevertheless given what little we have to work we will, this evening, go through each parcel and each person that requested to be heard and we will make a decision this evening from the City of Chanhassen standpoint as to what we feel your property tax should be handled. The county supplied the city with a listing of names. What I will do is just follow that and deal with each person in that order. If you have a comment to make about your property please raise your hand when we are discussing your parcel so that we may hear what it is you have to say. What I have done, so that all of you will be aware, is I have taken each individual parcel and have tried to review it as best as I can personally and I have made my recommendation to this board also. This group will be considering what the county is suggesting and what has happened in the past two years and any revised assessment from the county, in many cases Lana has had an opportunity to go out and to look at your property since the May 23rd hearing and this evening and those reassessments have been complete. I think you had a couple that were today. Do we have all the information? Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -2- The following interested persons were present: Jim Thompson, 6231 Greenbriar Earl Holasek, 8610 Galpin Blvd. Roger and Darlene Byrne, 6724 Lotus Trail Richard Schroeder, 6860 Lotus Trail Marie Schroeder, 6860 Lotus Trail Cindy Holub, 6670 Mohawk Drive Donald Sennes, 6680 Mohawk Drive Paul~ and Mike Wegler, 6630 Mohawk Drive Julia Colter, 6701 Mohawk Drive Robert and Rosean Amick, 581 Fox Hill Drive Bill Janich, 750 Carver Beach Road Harrison and Bernice Winters, 660 Lotus Trail Glen Grenier, 6630 Lotus Trail Donald Peterson, 6891 Navajo Drive Frank and Andrea Pattersen, 600 Broken Arrow Road Elroy Will iams, 7554 Great Plains Blvd. Mr. and Mrs. John Hagedorn, 1145 Holly Lane Mrs. Miles Lord, 1009 Holly Lane Alan Tollefson, 2931 Washta Bay Road Art Kimber, 2820 Tanagers Lane Steven Blom, 705 Carver Beach Road Nancy Wenzel, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway John and Gloria Ziegler, 6920 Minnewashta Parkway Mrs. Howard Boley, 7340 Minnewashta Parkway Julie Gay, Carver County Herald William Pedan, 6687 Hopi Road Mermon Tock, 6640 Lotus Trail David Halla, 10095 Great Plains Blvd. Steve and Marilyn Holter, 7201 Frontier Trail E. Bundgaard, 5417 Doncaster Way, Edina Steven Burke, 340 Deerfoot Trail Lance Fisher, 401 Highland Drive Jim Sykora, 407 Cimarron Circle Donna Jones, 7321 Dogwood Jan Quist, 7331 Dogwood Steve Oien, 6780 Lotus Trail Ray and Lisa Notermann, 1450 Arboretum Blvd. B. F. Schneider, 7701 West 77th Street Stan Cronister, 6730 Lotus Trail Duane Bickett, (Chief Deputy) Sheriff's Department I I Lana Larson: No. There are some letters that I received this afternoon that I have not completed. Mayor Hamilton: The first one is Ted Coey, Parcel #25-001-0300. The 1982 assessment was $212,100, 1983 $209,300. There has been no change suggested by the county. That was the extent of the information that I have and I made no adjustment either. Council members have any comments? Councilman Horn: value? Why did it drop? Is it due to a problem with last years figures I we heard not Lana Larson: It was due to are-appraisal. Councilman Horn: I would like to ask also, that verify these 1982 that we were given. In some cases they don't seem to jibe because last time that there were large increases from 1982-1983 which are reflected on some of these. I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -3- Lana Larson: I think that possibly what some of the comments were referring to was taxes rather than assessments and they were looking at taxes payable this year. The increase they were looking at was actually last year instead what it was this year. What they were looking at was the increase in taxes payable this year. Councilman Horn: The one I was referring to was later in the list but it was the Holasek property. It looked like it was a big increase this year over last year on assessed valuation. I am just wondering if all of these were verified as being correct. Lana Larson: I do have a few corrections here. Things that were not correct in the computer print. Mayor Hamilton: The next one is Frances O'Brien, Parcel #25-001-3000. There was a re-appraisal done on this property on 5/25. The county suggested a change from residential non-homestead to ago non-homestead which resulted in a decrease of $20,300. I am recommending no additional change. The next item is Theodore Pahl, Parcel #25-002-0200. This is a 246 acre parcel of land that the county says has 150 tillable acres. Mr. Pahl says there are 60. The 1983 total is $159,400. Based on the input I received I am recommending a change to $45,900 assessed valuation. In 1982 there was whatever portion was assessed was at $306 an acre. I applied that to the 60 tillable acres which would seem to be a reasonable amount to be taxed. Councilman Horn: What is the county's justification for their number? Lana Larson: The county originally had 147 acres tillable. We talked with Mr. Pahl and Mr. Sever Peterson regarding this property and they gave us the information that approximately 80 acres were actually tillable and we adjusted the value based on that because the original assessment had been at $197,200 and we adjusted that after speaking with them in the office to $159,400. Councilman Horn: What acreage did you consider in 1982 when you evaluated it at $75,500? Lana Larson: I don It have that information here. Mayor Hamilton: On the 23rd, Mr. Pahl said that and I think Sever said, that they felt 40 acres was usable so I, not knowing exactly how much, changed that to 60 acres. Lana Larson: They were in the office prior to the meeting on the 23rd and that's where our information came from. Councilman Horn: I still can It understand, without having the information from 1982, it's hard to justify how they could double the assessed valuation in one year and what you are recommending is almost half. Lana Larson: The information, as far as the original assessment was, most or-the acreages were taken off of aerial photos to come up with the number of total acres. Mayor Hamilton: It went from $75,500 to $197,200 then to $159,400? Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -4- Councilman Horn: This is all based on somebody's perception of tillable acres? Is that the main variable here? Mayor Hami 1 ton: Tha tis the property tha tis in the backwa ters of the I Minnesota River. A good share of it is under water. That was part of the reason for my coming up with the figure I did. If you can't plant land it isn't of much value. The next one is Dorothy Doughty, Parcel #25-002-0300. This parcel was revised by the county downward $18,000. You must have reviewed that property? Lana Larson: Yes. I spoke to the person that rents this property and he gave me the figures that are listed there, the 17 acres tillable, that the part that we had in pasture grrnd was actually most waste ground than pasture. This was what I came up with and it is being presented to you to approve or disapprove. Mayor Hamilton: I have no additional change. Dorothy Doughty: What do I need to do? Do I need to appear before the County Board still? Mayor Hamilton: It would probably be wise to just follow up to be certain that, that remains at $30,600 which is what Lana has suggested. The next person is Kathy Schwartz, Parcel #25-002-4700. Again, based on information I tried to be consistent with lakeshore property. This is a parcel on Christmas Lake. There seems to be a wide variance of the value of property on many of the lakes. I have revised the county's number from $188,900 to $171,400 and the reason for that change is using $600 as a average lakeshore value in that vicinity. I did not change the structure. I Councilman Horn: Was the 1982 figure correct? We showed no increase from 1982. Lana Larson: Right. Mayor Hamilton: This was another one, similar to Mr. Holasek's, that the property owner told me that the tax on this property doubled. That doesn1t seem to be indicated here. Lana Larson: The taxes payable last year were the 1981 assessment. The adjustment came between the 1981 and 1982 which is what most of the proper- ties did receive. Last year there were very few adjustments made. Councilman Horn: So what they were looking at here would have been 1982 payable 1983 which says there was a year in there where there was no complaint on this property. Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. Last year the tax increased 50%, this year it increased 100%. That's what I was told. I don It have the numbers here to substantiate that. Lana Larson: don It have the figures on taxes either. I I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -5- Councilman Horn: The increases should be consistent if the market value stays the same. If both the market value from 1982 and 1983 stays the same on two different properties, there ought to be a percentage increase on those two that would be consistent based on the mill rate. Isn't that correct? Lana Larson: If they were two identical properties, sitting on the same place so that they had all the same variables when it comes to figuring taxes. Councilman Horn: The mill rate shouldn't vary based on where the property sits. Lana Larson: Well, it does, based on whether which school district itls rn:-which watershed district it might be in. Councilman Horn: These two properties both sit in the same situation. They are both in the same school district and they should have the same percentage increase. Lana Larson: As far as increases in taxes, I don It know what the taxes did ~they are valued in a similar manner as far as the number of lakeshore feet and the value used per foot on the lakeshore. Mayor Hamilton: On the Schwartz property, the value of the lakeshore, in your calculations, was $687 a foot approximately. On the Gullickson pro- perty the value of the lakeshore was $966 a foot. Lana Larson: The majority of the value on lakeshore is placed on the first 100 feet. All of the lakeshore in Carver County is based on a figure for that lake on the first 100 feet and then the next 25 feet is 80% of that figure, the next 25 feet is 60% of that figure and anything over 150 feet would be at approximately 10% of that figure. It is a generally accepted way to value lakeshore. Councilman Horn: Where does lot size come into play? Lana Larson: Only if it's an extensively large lot. The majority of the value on lakeshore property is with the lakeshore itself. We take back approximately 350 feet being an average size lot. Councilman Horn: I just find it difficult to reduce them further when they have been consistent in the last few years. Mayor Hamilton: I am still recommending $171,400. Councilman Horn: I just think they ought to be consistent with 1982. Either 1982 should have been reduced or 1983 should not. Mayor Hamilton: Unfortunately you can It go back to that and all we can do is deal with what we have right now. Councilman Horn: What are your calculations based on? Mayor Hamilton: I told you, $600 a foot on the lake. I did not change the structure. Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -6- Councilman Horn: That's the same for Gullicksons? Mayo~ Hamilton: Absolutely. I did the same thing for his. The GUlliCksonl property is Parcel #25-002-4800. The county's assessment was at $224,900. I am suggesting that it be changed to $180,000 for the reason as I stated previously, the lakeshore property be valued at $600 a foot. I made no change to the structure valuation. Benjamin Gowen, Parcel #25-004-0100. The county revised this parcel from $113,300 to $104,200 due to a math error. I had no other information on this property and I suggest no further change. Merle Volk's property, Parcel #25-004-0600. This is the property on Ches-Mar Drive. It was valued by the county last year at $13,200. I am suggesting that the land value be changed from $9,700 to $25,500. The structure value be increased from $3,500 to $6,000 for a total of $31,500. The next parcel is C. H. Lawson, Parcel #25-005-1800. This parcel is valued at $127,800. Speaking with Mr. Lawson, he has three acres of tillable ground out of a total of 7~ acres. Approximately 3~ acres are woods. Lana, how do you say what the homestead site is? Lana Larson: I am using approximately half an acre in that area. Mayor Hamilton: On this parcel, there is also 400 feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta which, I feel, is unbuildable. I tried to be consistent trying to check back and forth with limited information, parcel to parcel, trying to compare apples and apples and it seems to me I saw someplace on I one of these that unbuildable property on Lake Minnewashta was valued at some dollars. It seems to be it was $75 a foot. That's the number I used for the 400 feet which gives that lakeshore value $30,000. The tillable acres I valued at $7,500, the woods at $3,500 and the home at $12,000 giving a value to this property of $53,000. Mr. Ziegler, Parcel #25-005-1900. 170 feet of lakeshore, tillable acreage 1.53, some of the other information we were supplied, I didn't quite understand. You have this property in Green Acres? John Ziegler: Yes, and also the Hunsinger property next door. Mayor Hamilton: In that case you are probably not concerned about changing the valuation of it as long as it is in Green Acres. My suggestion was, based on the lakeshore which in my oplnlon is unbuildable, $51,000 land and $36,400 on the structure for $87,400 total on that parcel. Another parcel you have, Parcel #25-005-2000. You have 270 feet of lakeshore on this parcel, tillable acreage of 14.48. Applying the same rules to this as I did the others I valued the land at $81,000, I did not change the structure for a total of $159,400. The next property is Howard Boley, Parcel #25-007-0200. Tillable acres 31.5. I valued the land at $79,600, the structure did not change for a total of $114,100. The next property is William Schmidt, Parcel #25-009-2100. The property was valued at $86,600. I had no additional information and according to my records Mr. Schmidt did not speak on the 23rd. I won It make any suggested changes. There are two parcels, Parcel #25-009-2200. I I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -7- The next parcel is Walter Whitehill, Parcel #25-009-2500. The county revised the valuation from $81,100 to $74,300. I am suggesting no addi- tional revisions. Dick Lyman, Parcel #25-010-0500. Tillable acres 20. I am suggesting a value of $50,000. That again is in Green Acres which he may not want to change. Mr. Lyman also has Parcel #25-010-1200. We didnlt have a 1983 number on this one Lana. Lana Larson: It's the same as it was the year before. Mayor Hamilton: It was $150,700. It is 55 tillable acres. I am suggesting a value of $137,500. Another parcel of Mr. Lyman1s, Parcel #25-010-1500. The county's valuation of $75,900. I am recommending $65,000. Raymond Notermann, Parcel #25-011-0300. This has been revised by the county from $92,500 to $84,400. I am suggesting no additional change. Wallace Otto, Parcel #25-015-0500. The county appraisal of $234,900 based on 71 tillable acres. I am suggesting $177,500. Merle Volk property, #25-015-0700. Mr. Volk spoke quite a bit about this property and based on that information the county revalued it from $50,700 to $35,500. I would suggest an additional change to $20,000. Another parcel of Mr. Volk's, #25-015-1500. This parcel was revised from $482,200 to $430,900 by the county. I am suggesting it be re-evaluated to $328,400 "based on 92 tillable acres. The Earl Holasek property, #25-021-0100. This is another one Lana that the change seemed to have occurred a year ago. Mr. Holasek indicated the change occurred this year in the information that we received. Lana Larson: He was referring to the 1983 taxes payable. Earl Holasek: I was talking to my accountant and he looked up the laws and would you read them Mayor Hamilton? Mayor Hamilton: "Horticultural structure must be a greenhouse or a struc- ture specifically designed, constructed, and used for the commercial pro- duction of plants or mushrooms." This is from Section 1450, Code 48, Federal Tax Guide Report. We can use these for reference. A copy will be given to Lana. The Holasek property was valued at $480,300, it was revised to $478,100. This is based on 34.01 tillable acres. The adjustment apparently was for the road easement which went through Mr. Holasek's pro- perty last year and they are still continuing this year. I am suggesting a change to $165,000. That's primarily based on the same number I used on the others. I decreased the property and a decrease in the structure which I estimated the value of the house. First National Bank of St. Paul, #25-022-0700. The 1983 assessment was $132,100. It was revised to $127,300. Applying the same numbers to this 22.5 tillable acres I reached a value of $79,200. Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -8- Another Earl Holasek property, #25-023-0200, 38 tillable acres, $131,200 suggested by the county. am recommending $95,000. Donald Coban, #25-023-1100. Recommended by the County $92,500. I would I like to revise that to $74,200. David Halla property, #25-025-2500. Mr. Halla was requesting the property be designated as Ag. I would recommended that be done. I know Dave has talked with both you and Craig and even with your letter it wasn1t clear to me at all where that issue stood and I will recommend to the board that his property be designated as Ag. Lana Larson: Since we typed the letter we had not spoken directly to Mr. Halla and since that time it has been cleared up and we agree it should be changed. Mayor Hamilton: Sever Peterson, #25-026-2000. The county valued it at $268,500. I am suggesting $96,000. Theodore Pahl, #25-035-0200. Your comment on here, Lana, is adj., I don It know if that is adjacent to or adjusted because of wasteland. Lana Larson: It was adjusted because of the wasteland. Mayor Hamilton: It was originally valued at $6,000. It was revised to $~O . Doe sit h a v e val u e if i tis was t e ? Lana Larson: Waste ground in Carver County is valued at $50.00 an acre at I Mayor Hami lton: I would recommend the Theodore Pahl property be valued $1,500. Sever Peterson, #25-036-1800. Tillable acres O. A valuation of $7,500. I would suggest $1,500. Another Sever Peterson property #25-036-1900, ten tillable acres, valued at $21,900. I am suggesting no change. Thomas Hamilton property, #25-050-0330. No change. That happens to be my parcel. It was valued at $54,800. The Assessor re-assessed it to $52,900. The appraisal was done 5/24. John Michelson, #25-160-0250. There are two lots. Lana Larson: They are not valued as buildable lots. Mayor Hami lton: I would suggest no change. Another John I~ichelson, #25-160-0270. Five lots. The city has determined are not buildable. I wasn't sure how to treat these even though they are not buildable it would seem like there must be some value to the lots. I arbitrarily assigned $500 as long as they are not under water. I am suggesting that $2,500 be the value of the property. Harvey F. Berg, #25-160-0420. The city has also determined the lots are not buildable. How many lots are there? I I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 Lana Larson: Seven lots. -9- Mayor Hamilton: $3,500 on that parcel. Harvey F. Berg, #25-160-0440. Lana Larson: Five lots. Mayor Hamilton: would suggest $2,500 on that one. Parcel #25-160-0450, Harvey F. Berg. How many lots there? Lana Larson: Twelve lots. Mayor Hamilton: That should be valued at $6,000. Donald Sennes, Parcel #25-160-0500. This was valued at $101,700. There was new construction in 1982 and 1983. Applying those figures I came up with a figure of $96,900. The Hank Dimler property, #25-160-0680. I didn't have any information on t his. Councilman Horn: It was purchased for $86,000. Mayor Hamilton: Why is there a discrepancy in a case like this. The home was purchased for $86,000. Lana Larson: There is some personal property in that $86,000. I did an appraisal on this, this morning and using the same basis as I use on any other home and the information that I found is how I arrived at $69,600. Mayor Hamilton: I have no additional change in that. Arnold Madson, #25-160-2140. Six lots valued as non-buildable. I would suggest $3,000 rather than $3,800. Lee Jensen property, #25-180-0190. The county has suggested $96,300. They have revised that to $84,300. I have no further change. Mark Shirvey property, #25-203-1000. The county valued it at $37,500. Based on the information I received as far as the letter from the Shirvey's, outlining the percent that it was complete and from the county the percent that it was complete and the purchase price, I would suggest that it be changed to $32,400. Councilman Horn: What's this purchase price of $80,000? Lana Larson: That's the price they paid when it was completed but it was ~complete in January. I figured it as being 45% complete. Councilman Horn: What is the $37,500 based on? Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -10- Lana Larson: That's based on the $22,500 is what I would figure the struc- ture to be complete. I never use the purchase price to value a home. I value with comparison with similar type property. I Mayor Hamilton: James OILeary property, #25-230-0180. The county had $118,300. It was revised to $115,900. I have no additional change. John Alden property, #25-230-0190. It was appraised at $175,000. They did not want are-appraisal. I have no additional change. John Hagedorn property, #25-255-0080. Valued at $102,400. It was revised by the county to $96,800. No additional change. Mrs. Miles Lord, #25-260-0110. It was valued at $279,300. Applying the same rules as I did to the other Christmas Lake homeowners, I am suggesting revaluation to $218,700. David Tester, #25-277-0010. Valued at $246,400. Based on the new construction in 1982, I valued the property at $227,400. Nigel Chilvers, #25-285-0020. You have an appointment to review theirs on June 8th. Lana Larson: After my re-appraisal I will make a recommendation to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: I would recommend no change at this time based on the appointment to review on June 8th. I Jeffrey Farmakes, #25-300-0230. The countyls figure of $173,000. There was new construction in 1982 of $103,400. Based on that, I am recommending a change to $142,700. That's a change in the structure. Jim Lutzweiler, #25-332-0160. The county's appraisal $245,000. We have limited information on this parcel. Based on the information that I had I am suggesting a change to $237,400. Roman Roos, #25-332-0180. The county suggested $249,100. I am suggesting that it be changed to $243,300. There was new construction of $5,800. Raymond Schuyt, #25-420-0030. There was new construction of $113,300. Purchased on 2/83 for $186,000. Valuation of $160,100. I suggest no change. Steve Taylor, #25-420-0140. The county has suggested $139,000. I am suggesting $134,100. Warren Erdman, #25-420-0150. The county was suggesting $129,000. It was revised by the county to $124,200. I am suggesting no change. Frank Lockovitch, #25-420-0240. I had no information. Lana Larson: He was here presenting the petition for Lotus Lake Estates. I ~as not necessarily referring to his own property. Mayor Hamilton: Dean Bowman, #25-420-0370. The information seems incon- si stent. I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 11 - Lana Larson: What came out as land and struction should be structure and total. The correct information would be on 1982. The total should be $202,900 and all the values remained the same for 1983. Mayor Hamilton: Based on the purchase price I would suggest $200,000. Dana Johnson, #25-495-0660. It was assessed at $81,400. Revised by the county to $84,000. It was re-appraised on 5/25. It was apparently based on some new construction. I am suggesting no change. Henry Arneson, #25-495-0720. The county is suggesting $124,800. It was revised to $132,200 due to new construction. I am suggesting no change. Minnewashta Manor Homeowners, #25-505-0360. The lakeshore, you are saying, is 175 feet. The county value is $5,500. I suggest no change. Art Kimber: That lot is entirely under water. There is no land there. Lana Larson: It is completely under water. I have spoken with different people from the city regarding this property last year when the question was raised on the value. Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest a value of $1,500. Harlan Johnson, #25-545-0270. The county suggested $77,200. That has been revised to $65,500. I would suggest no change. Leonard Hein, #25-615-0270, valued at $12,700. I am suggesting no change. Janice Rannells, #25-630-0200. It was valued at $77,100. There was no increase. I suggest no change. Esther Rask, #25-660-0130. Valued at $50,200. This has 80 feet of lakeshore valued at $550 per foot. Mrs. Rash was here and stated that most of that property was under water. It is a summer cottage. Again, applying valuation to property that's not too usable, I am suggesting that be revised to $29,700. $5,700 on the structure and $24,000 on the land. Barbara Wintheiser property, #25-670-0130. It was re-appraised on 5/26 from $157,100 to $151,800. I am suggesting no change. Florence Bischoff property, #25-670-0140. It was appraised at $122,400 and revised to $136,400. That would apply to 1984. I suggest no change. Eugene Hall property, #25-790-0080. It was valued at $82,200 and re- appraised to $71,600. I am suggesting no additional change. Gagnon property, #25-795-0100. It was suggested at $91,700. There was new construction of $12,600. Applying the guidelines, the land had increased from $40,000 to $45,000, I am suggesting it be changed to $40,000. The structure had changed from $34,200 to $46,700. I am suggesting $45,500 for a total of $85,500. The Allen Gray property, $25-810-0010. Your comment here is that the Sunny Slope values all remained the same for the 1983 assessment. We have no additional information. Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 1 2- Lana Larson: I was referring to all of the vacant lots out there and the City Council adjusted those last year and they didn't change. Mayor Hamilton: That was nit what I had heard Mr. Gray just say when he wasl here the 23rd. Lana Larson: I believe he was referring to taxes, also. Mayor Hami lton: I am suggesting no change. Gerald Paulsen, #25-820-0100. Suggested appraisal $72,800. Are-appraisal was done on 5/25 changing it to $75,500. I am suggesting no additional change. Harry Roberts property, #25-875-0010. $61,900 suggested by the county. It was revised to $56,000 in a re-appraisal on 5/26. I am suggesting no change. Timothy Thompson, #25-882-0110 of $102,400 to $101,400. There was new construction in 1983. I am suggesting no additional change. Charles Song property, #25-010-0400. How many acres? Lana Larson: A total of 112 acres. 40 acres tillable. Mayor Hamilton: The additional 82 acres is not ti llable, is it woods? Mayor Hamilton: I would suggest changing that to $136,300. Earl Holasek: That Song property, I farm it and it has 31 acres that are tTTTable and it1s mostly all verticle. I Lana Larson: We have it listed as 76 acres in pasture ground, 3.8 acres rn-waste, 2.2 acres in roads. Mayor Hamilton: You think it's 31 acres tillable rather than 40? Earl Hol asek: That's ri ght. Mayor Hamilton: I will still suggest $136,300. We have some parcels that we didn't receive any information on. Chanhassen Springs, #25-035-0100, valued at $419,300. There is 119.71 acres of which, I have no idea what is tillable, if any. What is the value of the struc- ture on the property? Lana Larson: I don It have that with me. The property is partially resi- dential and partially agricultural. The structures are $187,800. We show 20 tillable acres. Mayor Hamilton: Are those structures being used for anything at the pre- sent time? I Lana Larson: Two of the homes are being lived in and the big seminary bUllding is vacant. Council Meeting June 6~ 1983 -13- Mayor Hamilton: I am afraid I don It have enough information to even suggest. Can you get some information back to us? I Lana Larson: I can get information back to you. Are you going to act on ~t a later date? Mayor Hamilton: I would like to reserve the right to act on it at a later date because I didn't have any information on it. Don Ashworth: They went out with the original packet. For whatever reason the Assessor's Office did not have the information. We did not know until we got the listings back Friday that there were six parcels that they didn't have information back on and we didnlt know why. Mayor Hamilton: Ingeborg Honaas, 25-630-0020. Tim and Mary Bernier, #25- 013-4300 we received a letter from them also. Louise Fenger, #25-012-4800. Keith Bartz, #25-013-6000. I had some information on that and I was also able to find out there is 33.04 acres. There is 16 tillable acres. Most of the remainder is in pasture. He has a house on the property. Part of the pasture is also swamp. We didn't have a value on this either. There are two other that I am aware of, Larry Wenzel, #25-006-0200, you can supply us with information. Al Klingelhutz didn't appear on the list. You were here on the 23rd. I saw nothing on your property. I am not sure if you wanted us to take a look at it or not. I Al Klingelhutz: I wasn1t complaining too much about the assessed valuation. The only thing I was complaining about I wish the Council would recommend to the County Board that all the landowners in the county be treated equally. That all landowners, if they want to stay on the lower rate would have to go under Green Acres or take the Green Acres and keep us all on the same basis as western Carver County. Mayor Hamilton: I will include that in my letter to them. Councilman Horn: That was some of the information that we specifically requested last week was a property like Wallace Otto. He has property in this end of the county and property in the other end of the county and we specifically asked that we find out the discrepancy in the valuations on those two properties. We have not received anything back on that. Lana Larson: I believe that information is on a sheet from Craig. Mayor Hamilton: parcel number. that. There is one other parcel, Frank Beddor, I don't have his He gave me a letter. I will be sure that you get a copy of Lana Larson: I have a couple that arrived in our office today that I would like to be on record that they did appeal. I will get that information back to you. Jerome Carlson on the Instant Web property and Arnie Hed. Mayor Hamilton: When would you have that information to us? We need to act prior to Sunday which means you would have it by Monday morning. I Don Ashworth: Would you check and verify that it is Sunday. I know the City Attorney had stated that if it falls on Sunday that the Council is given until Monday to make a decision. Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -14- Lana Larson: I will check that out. The rest of the information, if I can contact the people, I can have to you by Thursday. Steve Holter: Parcel 25-821-0010. When is my appeal to be recorded? I do have a letter dated February 25, 1983, which objected to some things. Mayor Hamilton: Can Mr. Holter1s name be added to the list. I Ken Erickson: We sent a letter in and I hadn't heard anything about it. Mayor Hamilton: We have your letter. Lana will give us further information so that we can review your property. We will probably do that by next Monday. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the suggested changes in the 1983 valuations. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED WATER SURFACE USAGE ORDINANCE Mayor Hamilton - The public hearing is opened. There has been a sheet that was passed around for anyone to sign up who would like to speak on this issue. I will call on people who have signed the list. Just to refresh your memories, this item goes back several years. It is not a new item. There have been public hearings held on this on several occasions by the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. We are not attending to plow any new turf this evening. Comments that people make, I would appreciate it if you would limit them to any proposed new changes to the ordinance. The purpose for this policy, as I hope all of you have read, Section I of the ordi nance; liThe uncontroll ed use of the shorel ands adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by contri- buting to pollution of public waters and impairing the local tax base. In accordance with the authority granted in the Laws of Minnesota 1973, Chapter 379, and in accordance with the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 105, 115, 116, and 462, this ordinance is enacted to provide minimum standards for the use and development of the shoreland of public waters located in the City of Chanhassen in order to preserve natural environment values of shorelands and to provide for the wise utili- zation of land resources of this City, including the avoidance of uncontrolled and excessive use of public waters for docks, moorings, and other structures, and the elimination of unsafe or unnecessary installa- tions of docks~ boat mooring areas and other fixed or floating structures in public waters.1I That's the purpose of this proposed ordinance. The DNR has reviewed this ordinance. They have approved it. The revisions that s h 0 u 1 d bed i s c u sse d t his eve n i n gar e, s low now a k e Z 0 n eon II Lit t 1 e M inn i e II , 15 mph speed limit on Lake Ann and Lake St. Joe, prohibition of gasoline motors on Lake Ann and requirement for counter-clockwise travel on Lotus Lake. Tom Merz: Our concern here is that we have spent for the last five or six I years or ten years, we have constantly asked the lakes be controlled with some type of a density use. There is a rule and a regulation that provides for no more than 33 public accesses to a lake such as Lake Minnewashta and I I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -15- if we feel somehow the control this lake through the no wake zones, through the maximum speed without looking towards controlling this lake for its maximum type of use, we feel we are not accomplishing what we are trying to do and therefore, without something as provisions the amount of public accesses which we have all agreed to in previous times~ limits it to 33 parking spaces. We feel that this ordinance is doing nothing more than allowing us to develop the lake into something as big as Minnetonka and therefore we would request that as part of this ordinance that this boat usage and also that you go back to something else we have fought for, for the last 15 years and that's controlling that park with its 5,000 people per day that can come into it. The park is a passive nature study and it's controlled through horsepower restrictions and again, we fought for this thing and we see no mention of horsepower restrictions in that park and here is an influence of almost 2,000 people at a time and to about trying to control this lake through the size of my dock or the size of my raft really it's not pertinent if you are not going to control it for it1s den- sity use. Councilman Horn - The horsepower requirement limitation cannot be governed at one access-Gn the lake. The DNR has ruled that it has to be uniform throughout the whole lake. Tom Merz - You say that about DNR but that wasn't the provision to this park-when it was sold to the lake owners 15 years ago. Councilman Horn - The DNR didn't have that rule when this first contract was looked at years ago. Tom Merz - We didnlt negotiate with the DNR. We negotiated with the City. You came to us as lake owners and said, we will put this park on the lake and there are a certain amount of requirements and restrictions. We said, that's fine. This is one of them. You as a City put that in their con- ditional use permit to operate the park. If we are going to go to all of this work of controlling the lake, let's put some provisions in here to control the density. Roger Byrne - I would like to ask you a question. Did the City put up that 15 mph speed limit sign at the public access on Lake Minnewashta? Don Ashworth - The City required that it be put up. Any improvements out there are being made by the County but they have to do it in accordance with the restrictions set by the City. Roger Byrne - I have one thing I would like to say about Section 4.09. liThe operation of watercraft in other than a counter-clockwise pattern of travel is prohibited on Lotus Lake." That means that you go out there in your boat, it doesn't say speed boat, it says watercraft which means anything. If somebody goes out there with a canoe and go here and back, they can It do it. They have to go all around the lake 'because you have to keep going counter-clockwise. It sounds silly, but that's what the law says. Section 4.05, operation near shoreline. "Operation of watercraft within one hundred feet of any shoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from the shoreline and slow-no wake operation." Now, once you get out there, how do you get back in? If you have to always to straight out from the shoreline~ how do you get back to shore. If someone wants to fish within 50 feet of the shoreline, troll along the shore, they can't do it because you have to be out 100 feet going directly away from the shoreline. Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 1 6- Alan Tollefson - None of the questions I had are pertinent to what you want us to speak to tonight so I won It ask them. I do have one question~ is there a committee or group of people that I can meet with some time to I discuss some of the things I would like to talk about? Mayor Hamilton - I think Scott (Martin), could you meet with Mr. Tollefson? Scott Martin - Sure. Mayor Hamilton - I would also encourage anybody if you have a comment you would like to make about other portions of the proposed ordinance, put them in writing and please send them to us. Donald Peterson - I would like to talk about Section 4.09. Most of the lakes in Minnesota are shaped like Lotus Lake, how did they determine that it would save the shoreline or anything else? The DNR was opposed to this and doesn't see your reasoning behind it and they are involved with all the lakes in the state and I don't know how the City can enforce such a law. There is no way that boaters coming to this lake will be familiar with it so if they do have problems with this law or someone has a fatal accident, will the City be liable for that? I do represent the Carver Beach Association on that and we are all pretty much against that. Councilman Horn - The request to have counter-clockwise travel was a request from-IOtus Lake representatives on the study committee that pro- posed this ordinance. They said that the reason is that most of the residents who use the lake are already following that and having no trouble just because of the size and shape of the lake. Glen Grenier - I have been asked to speak on behalf of the people of Carver Beach. I have a letter describing our objections and point of view that I would like to offer to you. I would also like to read this statement of position and feeling with regard to this ordinance, however, it does deviate a bit from the specific sections of the ordinance which you described. Do I have permission to read it in its entirety? I Mayor Hamilton - We can all read it. You have given us a good amount of input and if we could read it and respond to it that would probably be better than just having you read it unless there were specific things you would like to point out in there. Glen Grenier - I guess I would like to read the cover sheet and not the specific objections. People of Carver Beach and members of the Carver Beach Property Association desire to go on public record as objecting to the City of Chanhassen's proposed revised Water Surface Usage Ordinance revised last May 6th 1983. Specifically, we object to the following sec- tions of the proposed ordinance as it applies to Lotus Lake. Section 2.07, 3.04, 3.05, 4.05, and 4.09. We feel that the Village of Carver Beach and the strip of parkland adjoining Lotus Lake once owned by the Carver Beach Property Owners Association represents a unique set of circumstances rela- tive to a general lake use ordinance and therefore requires special atten- I tion and compromise by the Council in considering the proposed ordinance. We feel that shoreline park once owned and regulated by the Carver Beach Property Owners Association for the inhabitants of Carver Beach represents a unique situation relative to public access and to perhaps an issue of proscriptive easement. The park property concerned is from a practical standpoint geographically access limited to inhabitants of Carver Beach as I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 1 7- there is no parking and no room for public parking within at least half a mile of the site. Access to the property even by the inhabitants of Carver Beach is limited to access by foot. Relative to the issue known legally as Proscriptive Easement; when this property was under the regulation of the Carver Beach Property Owners Association, inhabitants of Carver Beach were permitted to moor, dock and store watercraft in front of and on this pro- perty as well as to maintain the grounds of this property. In summary, we understand the City's desire to provide reasonable local regulation of the waters within the City and with the City's desire to provide uniformity of regulation where it is practicable. However, we feel that if uniformity of regulation would be actually realizable, there would be no need for local ordinances. One uniform regulation perhaps at the State or Federal level would be adequate. Then, realizing that uniformity in its purist form is not practical, we believe that reasonable and responsible regulation should include consideration for those local residents who over the years have responsibly maintained, used and enjoyed these waters and adjacent lands. Therefore we are asking the Councils consideration of our unique situation relative to the surface use ordinance. Thank you. Lance Fisher - You do have copies of written comments that I have made. I would like to make a correction. One statement regarding the counter- clockwise rotation on Lotus Lake, I incorrectly interpreted it and was objecting to a clockwise rotation. I still firmly believe that particular section would be better off phrased as a recommendation rather than a spe- cific ordinance with enforceability. I think it would be more effective that way and cause a lot less problems with the specific instances that people have brought up where it really doesn1t make any sense. Secondly, I think in general I agree with the tone of the ordinance, speaking as far as the entire ordinance goes but I am concerned that there has been very little enforcement of the existing State DNR Statutes, four of which I can think of that if they enforced more stringently would probably alleviate most of the problems that you are trying to alleviate with this, specifi- cally the ordinance regarding reckless and careless operation. That covers a very broad range of safety hazards. I am certain there are several boats operating in excess of the state noise limits. I think that's a problem I am concerned with. You went to a lot of trouble to put together some rules and regulations for structures such as slalom courses and ski jumps, yet there is an existing regulation for the State for the County to issue permits for rafts. You also put a bit in there about raft construc- tion and placement. To my knowledge the requirement for permits from the Sheriff and the Sheriff's plan to specifically check out the location of any raft that's causing a problem has never really been enforced and that would probably be more effective than any ordinance. I mentioned to you the other day that a lot of this ordinance seemed to be based on potential solutions to anticipated problems, you called that planning. I would have to disagree with that based on, I am normally used to see planning process dealing with research into an existing situation and other situations that are similar, I haven't seen any results of such research here. I have asked for it before if there were any user surveys, traffic counts, infor- mation from other areas that have similar problems to see if their ordinan- ces solved any of those problems, I would certainly like to see that data if it does exist. As far as I know the only research that was done to generate this ordinance was to examine several other ordinances. Councilman Horn - Have you seen a copy of the summary the density of the different types of uses on the different lakes? It1s put out by the DNR. One of the interesting statistics is of the waterskiing level on Lake Riley Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 1 8- is approximately two or three times the density of Lake Minnetonka. Lotus Lake density is higher than Lake Minnetonka. I Lance Fisher - I have often been amazed at that kind of an attitude~ I don't mean to put you down here, but many people feel that waterskiing is an activity that is best done on a large lake like Minnetonka. If you ask most waterskiers you will find that there is a much greater preference for smaller lakes even with a higher traffic density just due to the fact that there is a lot more protection from wind and generally calmer conditions and generally safer conditions. Out on Lake Minnetonka you have a tremen- dous problem with wind waves, boat waves and reckless operation that you don It see on the little lakes around here and that's probably why you see a higher waterskiing density around here. Councilman Horn - Your question was, were any statistics available. These are statist~that the DNR gave us. Marilyn Holter - I am representing Sunrise Hills and we do agree with what you have proposed here. We are definitely in favor of 40 mph being max on Lotus Lake. Lotus Lake cannot take many, many speed boats and if there are three or four speed boats out there then other boats at that time cannot use the lake. I think that we also would like to see, I have a 1981 Minnesota Boating Guide book, motors used on any watercraft must have a muffler, underwater exhaust or other device that adequately supresses the sound of the motor. We do have a problem with this on Lotus Lake and I think it could be included. Steve Burke - I am with the Lake Riley Homeowners Association and while Lake Riley is not specifically covered in this ordinance, I just have two points I would like to bring up. Lake Riley, as I understand, is not covered specifically in here because it's split between the two cities. I would like to recommend that those portions of the ordinance which don It deal specifically with say speed of the boat, but deal with dock structures and other things like that, could be somehow incorporated to include the Lake Riley. Those that can't be because it covers two different municipa- lities, will somehow have to be worked out. The other point that I wanted to bring up which is not addressed in your water usage ordinance here which I think is applicable, specifically to Lake Riley, is the use of the lakes as landing and take-off areas for the float planes. Lake Riley, two years ago had one plane and we now have five and I am hoping that we are not going to end up to be a float plane base because we are cut between the two municipalities and I am hoping you can incorporate something to deal with the float plane usage of waters. I Mayor Hamilton - We will contact Eden Prairie and work with them to see if we can find a mutually agreeable ordinance that could be enforceable. Councilman Horn - We were told that the float plane issue was under the control of ~FAA. Bernie Schneider - I represent the Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association on I Lake Minnewashta. We concur with the comments of Tom Merz and we would like to add a few additional comments on that. The Twin City Metropolitan Area Public Boat Launch Guide dated April 1983 will be coming out or is out and that will greatly advertise the number of public boat landings in the State of Minnesota and the seven county area and this will greatly increase I I I ~ Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -19- the traffic on all of our lakes. We believe that the amount of boats that can have access to the lake should be controlled and probably the best way is to limit the number of boats to the number of parking spaces provided in the regional park area and various other launch sites. Certainly it's quite an aggrevation to the property owners involved to have somebodys car and trailer standing by their property all day. It just creates a nuisance. The second comment that we have is that this ordinance addresses only the boats. We think the ordinance should be expanded to also include recreational vehicles and I am particularly concerned about the snowmobi- les. We have a restriction on boats that after 7:00 that the boat traffic be restricted to 15 mph. Snowmobiles are quite a nuisance on the lake and at 11 :00 at night or 1:00 in the morning they have the right to go 75 mph and they do create an aggrevation. Our association represents 13 property owners and the restriction proposed by the ordinance is that a dock be not more than 50 feet or four feet of water. At the present we only have two boats that are docked on our particular dock area. There are 13 property owners. We would like to advise the Council and the Commission that at some time in the future we may request a variance to dock additional boats and as a result we may have to expand the footage of the dock. If rafts are allowed 100 feet from shore then we certainly think that the docks should also be allowed to be expanded, if necessary, as long as they are not creating any traffic hazard. As long as the rafts do not have to be lighted at night it's quite a hazard and I think that if the docks are extended to that same distance as the rafts are, it's not going to create any particular problem. Those are basically our comments. We are cer- tainly concerned about the amount of boats that will be allowed to enter on to the lake at any particular time. Phyllis Pope - I have a question that I want to ask and also to comment on Section 4.09, direction of travel. It would make canoeing and sailing practically impossible on Lotus Lake to go in a counter-clockwise direction. My question is about 4.08, I want to know why boats with electric motors is being recommended on Lake Ann. Don Ashworth - The Park and Recreation Commission did review that and did make that recommendation to the City Council. The Council submitted the item to the committee but I think basically the committee relied on the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission. Phyllis Pope - What were their reasons. Don Ashworth - I don It know if there was one. I believe that it was stated that they did not feel as though electric motors would create any type of problem for the general public. There would be no noise associated with it and yet it would provide fishermen an opportunity to fish in different parts of the lake. Phyllis Pope - I would like to object to it because I think it's such a small la~hat any fisherman who can It row a boat over there to where he wants to go is in a bad situation to begin with. Mayor Hamilton - That concludes the folks who had signed the list. If any- body came in late and would still like to make a comment. ~ Klingelhutz - I guess electric motors on Lake Ann, we have quite a few people who are getting a little bit up in age, some of them have heart problems and the only way they can enjoy a lake is to have someone help put Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -20- the boat out there and take the boat out and use an electric motor to do some fishing or trolling and things like that and as far as electric motors go, I can It possibly see how they can affect the ecology or environment of any lake. I Mayor Hamilton - This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance. We will consider all comments that have been made here this evening and this item will be on the agenda for second and final reading and response to those questions and comments that have been raised this evening, June 21st. Councilman Horn moved that the proposed Water Surface Usage Ordinance be placed on first reading. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the April 26, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton abstained. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the May 16, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the May 23, 1983, Board of Review meeting. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative I votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the May 17, 1983~ Lotus Lake Task Force Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the May 19, 1983, Lotus Lake Task Force Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the May 24, 1983, Lotus Lake Task Force Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARVER BEACH ESTATES: Don Hess and Adrian Johnson were-present. Bill Monk - Since the preliminary plat was approved there are three items that have consistently proved stumbling blocks in having this item approved. The first one is the developerls request to have the assessments abated as described in Section 3.01 of the Development Contract. The sta- I tus of Outlot A versus platted property for access to the Owen's property, and the question about the access to the Troendle property. Briefly, Staff1s recommendation that the assessments as stated in Section 3.01 be left as they are and not be abated. That #2, that whether the access to the Owen's property is handled as an outlot or platted makes no difference I I I Council Meeting June 6, 1983 - 21 - as long as the outlot, should it be done that way, is handled as a part of the final plat and deeded over to the City for roadway purposes at that time, and #3 the three documents included in the package are agreements between the developer and Mr. Troendle, and Mr. Troendle and the City do seem, in my opinion and the opinion of the City's Attorney, to be adequate to protect both the developer, the property owner and the City. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the final development plan for Carver Beach Estates provided all documents are signed with the Owens and Troendle pro- perty and the assessments remain as levied. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 10-A REGULATING THE DESIGN, LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve Ordinance 10-A with the-recommen- dations of the City Engineer and approval of RESOLUTION #83-29. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. INFORMAL REVIEW, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, NEAR MOUNTAIN PRD: Dennis Mulvey was present. Lundgren-Brothers, Inc.-,s-proposing a-fTnal development plan amendment for the northeasterly 7.8 acres. The proposal is to construct 31 small lot, single family detached units in an area which was previously approved for 36 quad home-type units. The request also includes a change of phasing to expand the first phase of the project to include the 7.8 acre site as well as include a variance to commence construcation of a model home prior to final plan amendment approval and final plat filing. Council members generally were in favor of the proposed housing types and urged Lundgren Brothers to proceed. The Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on June 8th for the proposed plan amendment. REAR LOT SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, SUNNYSLOPE ADDITION: Mr. Steve Burke-was present seeking approval of a ~foot 4 inch rear yard setback variance in order to construct a three season porch with deck on the rear of his home at 340 Deerfoot Trail. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the request. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the rear lot setback variance for Lot 3, Block 1, Sunnyslope for Steven Burke. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 6721 HOPI ROAD, CARVER BEACH: Sally Schrupp is requesting a eight foot fr~y~setback variance to construct a 241 x 24' garage and an 181 x 25' solarium._ The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended approval of the request as proposed. Councilman Horn moved to approve the variance as requested for 6721 Hopi Road. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. ATTORNEY BILL, DUMP SITE: Don Ashworth - ~Curry was in today along with Al Klingelhutz. Jim has hired Larkin, Hoffman to prepare the legal work associated with the dump Council Meeting June 6, 1983 -22- site. I do have the legal opinion back from them. They feel very con- fident that this opinion basically will assure that the dump site could never go onto Lyman Blvd. enough so that a potential developer wishing to I purchase the property from Curry could move forward. The opinion did not come cheap. Jim did not go out looking for money in advance. $4,250 was the total. He has $2~250 of that taken care of. He asked if the City would consider $1 ~OOO payment. I stated to him that the first thing would be that this would have to go to our City Attorney to verify that in fact that, #1 he concurs with the opinion, and #2 that he feels it does provide the strength that Mr. Curry and Larkin, Hoffman think is really in it. If that were the case I would have to come back to the City Council to see if there would be any consideration for a contribution. Mayor Hamilton - I agree with what Don has said. I think Roger (Knutson) should review it and give us a brief comment back. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I