02-23-56 Special MeetingW
SPECIAL MEETING
of the
VILLAGE COUNCIL
February 23, 1956
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a Special Meeting of the Village
Council of the Village Council of the Village of Golden Valley, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, was held in the Village Hall on the 23rd day of February,
1956, at 8:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Nadasdy,
Rahn, Stark and Teresi; the following was absent: Bias. The Mayor
called the meeting to order at 8:35 o'clock P.M.
Application for Industrial Building Permit, Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator
ompany:
The Administrator advised the Council that said company had made application
for a building permit according to the laws, regulations, and customs of
the Village of Golden Valley, including tender of the building permit fee
by certified check in the amount of $44601.15, and thereupon presented and
read aloud a letter dated February 22, 1956, signed by Mr. Virgil H. Hill,
representative of said company, making formal written application for a
building permit, said buildings to be constructed upon the premises zoned to
Industrial Use on February 7, 1956, that Mr. Ralph Fredrickson, Village
Engineer, had studied the plans for subject building, and had approve them
as meeting or exceeding the building code requirements of the Village,
and further, that said plans complied with this Council's action of January
24, 1956, and / or February 7, 1956, insofar as possible at this time.
Upon question, Mr. Bobblett, Vice President of the A.D. Strong Company and
representative of the Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Company, stated that
the use proposed would not emit noxious fumes of any kind, nor did his principal
believe the proposed use of the premises would in any manner constitute a
public or private nuisance. Mr. Bobblett assured the Council that all of
the buildings under discussion would be faced with brick, al thoughof con-
crete block construction.
After further discussion of all aspects and details of the issue. Member
Rahn introduced the following written resolution and MOVED its adoption:
RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
WHEREAS, Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Company has made application for a
building.permit for construction of buildings to be located as stated in
the application on lands rezoned Industrial on February 7, 1956; and
AREAS, The Building Inspector reported and the Council finds that
the application and plans are proper and conform in all respects with the
building and zoning codes of the Village., and that the proper fee has been
deposited with the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 17, 1956, a petition was filed with the Village
Clerk which purported to be a petition under the provisions of M.S.A. 462.01
and requested a referendum election to determin whether the amendatory
ordinance referred to above should become effective; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council is in doubt concerning its right to
proceed and grant a building permit under the circumstances herein recited,
NOtr1 THEREFORE, be it resolved that the application of Minneapolis
Honeywell Regulator Company referred to herein, be, and the same hereby is,
denied and the Village Clerk is authorized and directed to return the
application, plans and permit fees to the applicatt.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by Member Stark, and upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following
votes were recorded:
Nadasdy YES
Stark YES
Rahn YES
Teresi YES
(Member Bies was absent)
The Village Attorney thereupon presented and read the following letter
recited herein at length:
"'February 23, 1956
Gentlemen:
"I have been requested to give you my opinion with reference to the petition
presented to the Council at its meeting February 21st, requesting a refer-
endum election on the so-called Honeywell rezoning amendment. The precise
question raised was this:
"Does M.S.A. 462.01 prevent the suspension of the effect not only of
54
an original zDning ordinance, but also of any given amendment thereto"?
"Prior to 1935, this section made a referendum election a condition
precedent to anactmant of a zoning code, but its language was such that
the election provision applied only to an original enactment of zoning
regulations and not to subsequent amendments.
"In Chapter 376, Laws of 1935, the section was amended by substituting
the present second sentence for the original one. It reads as follows
emphasis suppliedx:
"After the adoption of an ordinance hereunder and within ten days
after its publication such ordinance may be suspended in effect upon
the filing of a petition signed by resident freeholders of the munic-
ipality in a number equal to not less than ten per cent of the legal
voters of the municipality requesting that the question of permitting
the council to zone the citx be submitted to the electors at a general
or special election, and the ordinances shall not again become effective
until a majority of the electors voting on the question approve the
proposition permitting the governing body to zone the municipality".
"If it is argued that the legislature intended in Chapter 376 to extend
the opportunity of an ,election to anendments as well as to an original
ordinance, then,
'r(a) Why did the legislature not once use the word "amendment"
in the new phrasing of the election provisions, and
"(b) Why did the legislature specify that the proposition which
could be petitioned to be submitted to the electors was
that of "permitting the governing body to zone the munici-
pality"?
"It would seem that if the legislature had meant to extend the election or
referendum provision to amend an over-all ordinance, it would have done
so in specific terms and would have phrased differently the question to
be submitted by station the question broadly. The legislature showed it
was still thinking only of a referendum on the general proposition whether
the municipality should have a zoning ordinance at all.
"M.S.A. 6115.17 reads in part as follows:
"In ascertaining the intention of the legislature the courts
may be guided by the following presumptions:
11(1) The legislature does not intend a result that is
absurd, impossible to execute, or unreasonable.."
"It would violate the above presumption to contend that M.S.A. 162.01
authorizes a village referendum whenever a sufficient petition against a
particular zoning amendment is filed. Most zoning ordinance amendments
are transfers of a particular tract of land from one use district to
another. Such transfers are of interest and concern only to residents in
the immediate vicinity. It hardly seems possible that the legislature had
such ordinances in mind in requiring that a petition be signed by resident
freeholders not less in number than 10% of the legal voters of the entire
village.
"The view of counsel for the petitioners, or some of the, leads to what
to me seems to be an impracticable interpretation of the statute, parti-
cularly in growing and populous villages and cities such as Golden Valley,
where numerous amendments may be made to the zoning ordinance each year
and thus, if the theory be carried to its extreme, numerous elections, at
great expense to the Village, on such questions could be held each year,
have not in this opinion taken into consideration the language of the
petition nor the signatures thereon, since no opinion on that matter
seems necessary at the present time. This opinion has been given on the
assumption, whether false or true, that the petition is proper in form
and numerical sufficiency, and my opinion goes only to the effect of the
petition in the light of that assumption.
"Although I am convinced of the correctness of the opinion here given you,
the question is not so free from doubt that no reasonable lawyer could
fail to agree with me. Counsel for the petitioners, for one, disagrees,
The Council is not a judicial body and the question is a legal one that
can be finally determined only by the Courts.
Golden Valley Village Council Very sincerely yours,
Mr. Carl #adasdy, Mr. Leonard Bies Stanley D. Kane
Mr. K.W. Rahn, Mr. R.R. Stark
Mr. Cliff Teresi
c/c Mr. Royce W. Owens
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by
the Mayor, and his signature attested by the Clerk. See Resolution Book
Page.` f91
Whereupon Mr. Royce W. Owens, Clerk of the Village of Golden Valley, tendered
all building plans and appurtenant data heretofore submitted by the Minn -
Honeywell Regulator Company, including said company's certified check, to
Mr. Virgil Hill, representative of said company, as directed by the fore-
going resolution.
Mr. Virgil Hill, on behalf of the Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Company,
refused tender of said building plans and appurtenant data, and stated that
he, acts on behalf of the Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Company, re-
newed said company's demand for the issuance of a building permit as
heretofore requested.
1956 Gravel and Fill Requirements:
The Administrator and the Engineer advised the Council of probable
quantities of said materials which may be required as a result of public
improvement projects contemplated at this time. The Council accepted the
reports of said persons.. and requested definite recommendations at the
earliest possible time.
Appointment of Election Judge or Clerk, March 20th Election:
MOVED by Rahn seconded by Teresi carried to appoint Mrs. Margaret Lien,
1025 Winnetka Avenue North, an election judge or clerk for Election District
No. 6.
Sanitary Sewers, Contract with St. Louis Park:
The Village Attorney stated that the City of St. Louis Park was ready to
execute the contract for the joint construction of the "Tyrol Hill" branch
of the South Trunk Sewer per agreement between the engineers and admin-
istrators of both municipalities on February 16, 1956. Said contract
was then read in its entirety by the Attorney.
MOVED by Rahn seconded by Stark carried to approve said contract and to
authorize and direct the proper village officials to execute said agreement.
Salary Survey, Village Assessor:
The Administrator presented and read a letter from Mr. Wm. E. Pinch,
Assessor, dated February 20, 1956, said letter requesting that the po-
sition of the Village Assessor be revised to a full time position with
appropriate salary provided.
MOVED by Rahn seconded by Stark carried that the position of Assessor
shall hereafter be a full-time position, with salary and/or allowances
as set forth in the letter heretofore mentioned, and to instruct and
authorize the Treasurer and the Administrator to determine and effectuate,
with Council consultation, the best method of implementing this motion
with the least possible budgeta .nr dislocation.
MOVED by Rahn seconded by Stark carried that the meeting adjourn.
r
Attes .
e