Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19740926_specialMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1974 p. h c9 w W Members present were Councilmen Courtney , Johnson, Shaw and Mayor Van Valkenburg . ROBERT DE BREY VARIANCE REQUEST GRANTED FOR 4502 BROWNDALE AVE. kenberg recalled that the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Robert 6. Gisselbeclc to the Mayor Van Val- Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision granting a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Robert De brey had been continued to this meeting from September 16, 1974, so that the City Attorney could render an opinion on the questions of what constitutes "undue hardshipEf and "unique circumstancesn with respect to the De brey variance petition; and specifically, whether expenses incurred- in reliance on a building permit issued to Mr. De brey, or the mental anxiety and stress of the De breys, may constitute the requisite "hardship" necessary to granting a var- iance. Mayor Van Valkenburg said that Mr. Ericlcson has now furnished that opin- ion and recommended that the opinion be considered a privileged communication. Council reviewed the second set of plans which the De breys had brought in to ' the Building Department when they requested their permit, ined by Mr, Vayne Michael of the Building Department, who said that he had not realized that there was any intention of changing the use from the greenhouse. He said that he did not recall having seen the oveklay which was exhibited. De brey said that he did not recall specifically telling Mr. Michael of the changed use for the addition and did not realize that any variance would be re- quired at the time he started construction. Councilman Johnson read from the original Building Permit application for a kitchen, porch and unfinished green- house on which Mrs. De brey had signed a statement saying that the statements made therein were true and that all work would be done in accordance with the ordinances.of the Village of Edina.' Councilman Courtney said that he believed that the City is responsible for the De breys going ahead with their project. He said that because of the work stoppage, because of the money expended, because of the personal hardship in having their house open in part to the elements, because he would probably have made the same mistake under the same circumstances and because he believed that this is an "undue hardship", in a large part due to the City, he moved that the appeal of Mr. Robert G. Gisselbeck be denied and that the variance of Mr. and Mrs. De brey be granted. Councilman Johnson said that he believed that the De breys were negligent in not getting an estimate of additional heat needed before obtaining the building permit and that if they had done this, the problem would never have risen. that they proceeded in good faith, not realizing that-a variance would be required. Councilman Johnson said that he believed that the City has a moral responsibility and that he was concerned about the financial loss of the De breys. Councilman Shaw said that, while he believed that it was a self-created hardship because "ignorance of the law is no excuse", he thought that the "unique to the propertye' because of the location of the garage and because of the age of the area in general and the older construction which did not contemplate double garages or possible expansion, that the financial loss is certainly a hardsh'ip, and that the addition will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. then seconded Councilman Courtneyfs motion with the findings that the De breys acted in good faith without actual knowledge of the applicable zoning require- ments, that the financial loss that they incurred in reliance of the permit is an undue hardship, that the hardship is because of circumstances unique to the pro- perty, and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, the general welfare and in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Greg Gustafson, attorney for the Gisselbecks, said that his clients will suffer a financial hardship from the addition to the De brey's house and asked if the Council would entertain a motion €0 reimburse the Gisselbecks for the loss that they will incur. No action was taken by the Council. Mr. Gustafson further stated that the Gisselbecks would not object to an appropriate compromise and have indicated that they will withdraw their objection if the De breys go back to the original idea of a greenhouse. . man Courtney said that Council has no proof that the pmoposed addition to the De brey's house would actually lessen the value of the Gisselbeck's property. Mr. Messerli, attorney for the De Breys, pointed out thatfhey had delivered to the Council a formal appraisal which evidenced no decrease in value of adjoin- ing properties. on both sides as to the affect that the, addition wo;ld have on the value of the Gisselbeck's property and that the neighbors had made no objection to the addi- tion until they were called by the Gisselbecks. Councilman Johnson pointed out that Council had no real information that the De breys had actually expended $12,000, but acknowledged that they had certainly spent a "substantial sum of money". I The plans were exam- Mr. I He said that he is satisfied I situation is He Council- Councilman Courtney recalled that Council has heard opinions Discussion was held on the subject of landscaping on the North side'of Councilman Courtney then added to his motion, which addition was 'the addition. 9 /26 /7 4 approved and seconded by Councilman Shaw, that the variance be granted, subject to the condition that plantings and landscaping as directed and approved by the Planning Department be incorporated in the constructions plans. there were three ayes, with Nayolt.Van Valkenburg abstaining from voting and the motion carried. to see a copy of Mr. Erickson's opinion, Mayor Van Valkenburg recalled that at the beginning of .the meeting he had recommended that this opinion be considererd a privileged communication between attorney and client and that there has been no-motion to overrule him in the matter. Mr; Gustafson said that he has been- instructed to consider an appeal to Council's dhcision and that the opinion might show that any appeal is futile. privilege would save the Gisselbeck's from-paying for researching the question all over again. ege be waived. On rollcall In reply to a question of Eir. Gustafson that he be permitted . He also said that the waiver of the I- . No action was taken on Mr. Gustafson's request that the privil- 1975 BUDGET ADOPTED. ember 19, discussion was held regarding the proposed 1975 Budget which had been revised to reflect an estimated property tax levy of 6.95 mils, compared to a 1974 levy of 6.29 mils, $324,277.622, which valuation called for an increase of taxes of!$288,030 02 14.65%. Nr. Dalen pointed out that Revenue Sharing Funds would be used for salaries for Public Safety employees. following resoiution and moved its adoption: At the Budget Meeting of September 26 adjourned from Sept- The proposed budget reflected assessed valuation of Councilman Courtney thereupon offered the RESOLUTION ADOPTIXG BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDINA FOR THE YEAR 1975, AND ESTABLISHING TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 1974 PAYABLE IN 1975 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, DOES RESOLYE AS FOLLOb7S: hereby adopted as hereinafter set forth; and.funds are hereby appropriated therefor: GENERAL FUND Section 1. The Budget for the City of Edina for the calendar year 1974 is GENERAL GOVERNMENT Mayor and Council . $ 21,730 Planning 44,962 Administration 138 , 783 Finance ,132,516 Elect ion 7,915 As s es sing 100,946 Legal and Court Services 68,030 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $, 514,882 PUBLIC WORKS Administ ration $ 37,913 Engineering 180,721 Highways . I .i 997 761 PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY Police $1,080,587 ,Fire 488,086 Civilian Defense 4,831 Public Health 50,804 Animal Control 17 , 420 Inspection 85,428 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS. 1,216,395 TOTAL PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY 1,727,156 NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES Contingencies " $ '85,000 Settlement of Suits 500 Special Assessments on City Property 60,000 Capital Improvements ' 50,000 Human Rights Commission 12,332 Unallocated Capital Outlay 5,000 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS AND CONTINGENCIES 212,832 PARK FUND Administration TOTAL GENERAL FUND $3 67 1,265 S 155,136 J Recreation 85; 195 Maintenance 209,440 Capital Outlay 15,000 TOTAL PARK FUND . $ 464,771 Section 2. Estimated Receipts other than General Tax Levy are hereby est- ablished as hereinafter set forth: 9/26/74 ry 0 W GENERAL FUND Transfer - Revenue Sharing Fund Licenses and Permits Municipal Court Fines Department Service Charges Other Transfer from Liquor Fund State Apportionments - Sales Tax Income on Investments TOTAL GENERAL FUND PARK FUND Registration Fees Other Transfer from General Fund Transfer from General Fund PARK CONSTRUCTION FUND $ 125,,000 156 , 500 160 , 000 157 600 151,090 5,000 843,136 50,000 $1 , 648 , 326 $ 27,000 200 240,000 267 , 200 80 000 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS $1,995,526 That there be and hereby is levied upon all taxable real and Section 3. personal property in the City of Edina, a tax rate sufficient to produce the amounts hereinafter set forth: For General Fund $2,022 , 9 39 For Park Fund 197,571 For Firemen's Relief 5,000 For Fire Protection 15 , 500 For Bonds and Interest 13,000 $2 254,O 10 Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Johnson and on rollcall there were four ayes and no nays and the resolution was adopted. No further business appearing, Corincilman Johnson's motion for adjournment was seconded by Councilman Shaw and carried. YL- City Clerk. x2LJuLA,