10/28/1996 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1996 Council Member Kuether asked Ms. Wyland if there was a reason why the property owners were not notified of the increase immediately upon discovering it. Ms. Wyland stated that she was not aware that the increased work would result in an increase to the amount of the assessment. Additionally, the assessment period had passed by the time the increased amount was known. Mrs. Gevinka thanked Ms. Wyland for all of her efforts throughout the three-year period since this effort began. Council Member Kuether moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Neal moved to adopt Resolution No. 96 - 137 approving the assessment for the Rice Lake Estates Letter of Map Revision at $94 per lot. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Council Member Bergeson indicated disagreement with attempting to recoup the $400 paid to FEMA from TKDA, but that it might be appropriate to seek the additional engineering expense of $900 from TKDA. Council Member Kuether agreed with Council Member Bergeson. Mayor Landers agreed that the property owners should only pay the $94 they were originally assessed. Motion carried with Council Member Kuether voting no. Resolution No. 96 - 137 can be found at the end of these minutes. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT, MARY KAY WYLAND Consideration of a Variance, John and Kim Sullivan - Ms. Wyland explained that Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan are requesting an "after -the -fact" variance which was tabled at the September, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting. At the September 18, 1996 Council work session some members of Council indicated that a dangerous precedent would be set should Council agree to any cost sharing with respect to relocating the building as originally suggested by the Sullivans and some members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Council suggested the Sullivans review their original request, make some modifications if necessary, and return to the Planning and Zoning Board with a petition from the adjoining property owners. Ms. Wyland stated that after Staff discussions with the Sullivans, they opted to request permission to keep the building in its present location. Staff received a petition from the adjoining property owners indicating no objection to the location of the accessory building. By a vote of 5 to 2, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Sullivans' request at its October, 1996 meeting. The Board did not believe a variance to allow the building 1-1/2 feet from the property line was acceptable even though the building is an existing structure and some miscommunication occurred between the Sullivans and City Staff. The Board did, however, acknowledge that a variance of 10 or 15 feet would receive a more acceptable review, as there is some apparent hardship to the land. Staff recommended adherence to its original recommendation of denial in the present location. 6