Laserfiche WebLink
1/25/88 <br />95 <br />Constable presented his arguments in support of the requested variances as <br />submitted in his letter dated January 22, 1988 and asked that the appeal be <br />reconsidered for the foLlowing reasons: 1) He was replacing a deteriorating fence <br />and deck so it would be more presentable, 2) He had always been in contact with <br />the Building and Planning officials and tried to meet their requirements and <br />codes, 3) Confusion about the property line was based on a certified survey in the <br />possession of the City which they now feel if incorrect and on which he had relied <br />in rebuilding the deck in the same location as before, 4) His neighbors all feel <br />it is an improvement and have no objections, 5) That it was not clarified to the <br />Board of Appeals that there had been an existing deck; that he had been in touch <br />with the City at all times and relied on information given to him from the City <br />files, and 6) That denial of the variances would impact the aesthetics, function <br />and market value of his house and would be a severe hardship. Mr. Constable also <br />presented a letter from Steve and Kathleen Peterson, 6201 Hansen Road, in support <br />of the requested variances. <br />refer this matter back to the Board of Appeals because of the additional evidence <br />presented from the neighbors. <br />have Mr. Constable offer the option of removing the lattice top on the fence in <br />response to the concerns of the neighbor at 5320 West 62nd Street and so that it <br />would conform. She asked that this be heard by all five members of the Board of <br />Appeals. Motion failed for lack of a second. To address the variance on lot <br />coverage, Member Smith proposed that when the patio needs to be replaced that it <br />be brought into conformance with ordinance requirements and asked if there was a <br />way to be sure this would happen. <br />impose conditions on variances and put them of record at the cost of the property <br />owner. Dave Lindman, 5325 West 62nd Street, spoke in support of the variances and <br />said that he felt that the additions Mr. Constable has made to his property are an <br />improvement. <br />height of the fence and the fact that it exceeds the ordinance 'requirement. <br />Member Smith moved to deny the 4.5 foot fence setback variance and to grant the <br />2.4% lot coverage variance and the 4.5 foot deck setback variance for the property <br />at 5324 West 62nd Street, subject to the condition that the property be brought <br />into compliance as to lot coverage at any time in the future when the patio or <br />deck is removed or destroyed in whole or in part, and that this condition be <br />placed of record at the cost of the property owner. Motion was seconded by Member <br />Kelly. <br />Following discussion, Member Kelly made a motion to <br />Member Kelly also stated that she would like to <br />Attorney Erickson said that the Council can ' <br />Member Turner commented that she was still concerned about the <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner <br />Motion carried. <br />*BID AWARDED FOR POLICE SQUAD CAR LIGHT BARS. <br />seconded by Member Smith for award of'bid for police squad car light bars to <br />recommended low bidder, Don Streicher Guns, at $6,712.00. <br />Motion was made by Member Kelly and <br />Motion carried on rollcall vote, three ayes. <br />TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 1/19/88 APPROVED. Motion of Member Kelly was <br />seconded by Member Smith to approve the following recommended action listed in <br />Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of January 19, 1988: <br />1) Installation of "NO U-T[JRN" signs on eastbound West 50th Street at Grange Road <br />2) Installation of "SCHOOL ZONE - 20 MPH" and "CAUTION - BUS LOADING ZONE" <br />warning/advisory signs on the East Frontage Road of Highway 100 in front of the <br />Edina Connuunity Center, <br />and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. <br />Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Turner <br />Motion carried. <br />PROPERTY TAX REFORM PROPOSALS DISCUSSED. Member Turner advised that this item is <br />on the agenda for several reasons. <br />proposals circulating for the 1988 Legislative Session. <br />Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) will be considering the property tax reform <br />proposal that is coming from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, <br />Minneapolis and St. Paul at its meeting on February 4. <br />able to represent the City as the issue is discussed. The Municipal Legislative <br />Commission (MLC) will be discussing this issue at its meeting on January 26. <br />Secondly, this is being discussed for the Council's information and also so that <br />the City's representatives at those meetings can convey the City's position on the <br />issue. Manager Rosland then gave an explanation of the property tax reform <br />proposals summarized.as follows. <br />suburbs, decided about six months ago to take an active and aggressive role in the <br />Minnesota property tax system. <br />"A Guide to Minnesota's .New Property Tax System" which has been distributed <br />throughout the Twin City area to the media, legislators, tax people, city <br />councils, etc. The second step was the developing of some formulas for property <br />tax reform and local government aid. <br />Coordinating Committee was formed by a coalition of out-state cities, Minneapolis <br />and St. Paul to develop a proposal and recommendations on property tax reform. <br />The LMC met with that committee and made a decision not to join in their efforts <br />because the LMC had a different approach to property tax reform. <br />explain the proposal drafted by the Committee. <br />First, there are several property tax reform <br />The Association of <br />She said she wanted to be . <br />The MLC, a coalition of fifteen Twin Cities <br />The first step was the drafting of the MLC's <br />Meanwhile, a Property Tax Reform <br />He briefly <br />The LMC is proposing the