81-10-06MOUND CITY COUNCIL
October 6, 1981
City Hall
7:30 P.M.
CI'TY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
AGENDA
o
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15.
16.
17.
Minutes of September 29, 1981
Public Hearing on Delinquent Utility Bills (List Attached)
Variance Application - John Munkelwitz
(Item lef't off of Sept. 29, Agenda) Resolution
Designation of week of October 10 to October 17, 1981,
as "National Fitness Week" - Resolution
Mound - Spring Park Water Connection - George Boyer
1. Approval of Plans and Specifications - Resolution
2. Set date for Bid Opening - Motion
(Report to be handed out separately)
Urban Hennepin County Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program
Administrative Reimbursement - ResolUtion
Resolution levying deferred and supplemental assessments
upon waiver of formalities; directing preparation of
abstract and directing certification to the County
Auditor. (4 separate Resolutions)-
A. Supplemental 1979 Street Improvement (7928)
B. Supplemental Sanitary Sewer Improvement (3180)
C. Supplemental Sanitary Sewer Improvement (3388)
D. Tree Removal (Spread over 3 years)
1982 Dock Application Form - Motion
Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present
Cable TV Committee Update
Zuckman Case Update (Executive Session)
School District Letter - 110 Curb Cuts , Request
Burlington, Northern Lease
Discussion of Staffing Strategies
Transfer of Funds
Payment of Bills
Information/Miscellaneous
Pg. 725-733
Pg. 734
Pg. 735-740
Pg. 741-743
Pg. 744
Pg. 745
Pg. 746
Pg. 747
Pg, 748-749
Pg. 750-753
Pg. 754-772
Pg. 773-775
Pg, 776-778'
Pg. 779
Pg. 779
Pg. 780-793
page 724
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
131
September 29, 1981
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in
said City on September 29, 1981, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gordon
Swenson, and Robert Polston. Councilmember Don Ulrick was ~b~ent and excused.
Also present were City Manager, Jon Elam; City Attorney Jim Larson; City
Engineer John Cameron; Building Inspector, Henry Truelsen; Secretary Fran Clark
and the following interested citizens: Tom Watson, John Munkelwitz, Jeannette
Rivers, Randi Saba, W. H. Hillier, Mr. & Mrs. W. R. Netka, Hal Borg, Orv Fenstad,
Philip Hofherr, Mrs. Macius, George Millford, and James Broucksou.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the September 22, 1981, Regular Council Meeting were presented
for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a~otion to approve the
minutes of September 22, 1981, Regular Council Meeting, as submitted. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE
The Mayor explained that this Public Hearing is .being held to hear any
objections before the Council certifies the cost the City assesses the
downtown business people for street lighting, parking lot sweeping and
plowing, etc. for 1982.
The City Manager stated that all affected people were notified and the Public
Hearing was published according to the law.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked for any objections or comments.
Mr. Hillier (PID.#14-117-24 44 0036 - Ben Franklin Store) stated that,
in the past, he has paid for all the maintenance and blacktop for the
parking lot on the south side of his building and has not received any
credit for parking lot available. He would like to receive a credit
on his assessment for the 110' south of his building in the amount of
$7.00 per 10' area or $70.00 but would settle for paying his entire
assessment of $654.94 this year if they can get into the program next
year and the city takes over the maintenance of this lot.
Mayor Lindlan said it would take approximately a 2 yea[ period of
adjustment to makeup the inequalities that have been established and
to reflect this credit in future assessments. Also to try to get
permission from the railroad to get a complete blacktop lot to within
20' of the center of the tracks so that the lot is maintainable and the
City doesn't have to regravel every year.
Mr. Hillier said this was very satisfactory.
There were no other objections or comments and the Mayor closed the Public
Hearing.
Charon moved and Swenson seconded the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION 81-316 RESOLUTION THAT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT IS APPROVED AND BE LEVIED AS PER THE ASSESS-
MENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,549.36 FOR 1982.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion passed. 7~'"
132
September 29, 1981
PUBLIC HEARING - SP£CIA[ USE PERMIT
FOR A YOUTH CENTER/ARCADE -TOM WATSON
Mayor Lindlan gave the Mayor's chair to Councilmember Polston because of a
possible conflict of interest.
Acting Mayor Polston opened the Public Hearing. The following people were
present objecting to the youth center/arcade for reasons and comments stated:
Randi Saba - Their property is adjacent to the building and is residential.
Noise for the building which they already hear without the
arcade.
The alley next to the property is their only access to and
from the street.
Possible trespassing by the patrons of the arcade.
Bill Netka - Interested in how parking will be handled.
Noise and who will do policing of outside for trash.
Afraid there will be trespassing on his apartment property.
Orv Fenstad - Questioned fire safety of the proposed sight.
Thought it would be better out of the downtown area,
I.P. Hall or the Depot.
Asked about supervision of the establishment.
Hal Borg - Owns the Professional Building across the alley and is
worried about the limited parking for his building being
used by the patrons of the arcade.
Traffic on Auditor's Road is a definite problem.
W. H. Hillier - Thought this was the worst thing to happen to the
downtown area and businesses.
The senior citizens are already feeling harassed by
the youth at the Mound Clinic.
Felt the Depot would be a better place for a community
center and it has parking also.
Tom Watson presented the following:
1. Proposed hours so there would not be a conflict with church or
school: Monday thru Friday 2:30 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
Saturday 2:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
2. He will police the area around the building and the parking lot
adjacent, east of the building.
3. He is proposing to provide handicap parking and bike racks out
in front of the building.
4. He stated the building is .insulated and he didn't feel noise
would be a factor.
5. There will be adult supervision on the premises at all times the
arcade is open.
6. He proposes to have the place carpeted and have a couple of pool
tables, video games (which are very quiet), foosball and serve
deli type sandwiches, pizza and pop.
At this point in the Public Hearing, Councilmember Ulrick arrived.
The City Attorney explained a special use permit and explained that an
arcade is a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance and can be granted
by the Council with certain conditions to be determined by the Council.
This permit is also only granted for a year at a time and is renewable
only at the Council's discretion.
133
September 29, 1981
Counc[lmember Ulrick stated that he would have to abstain from voting on
this issue this evening because he was late and would like to have benefit
of the tape from the early part of the public hearing before he would vote.
He also stated that he would like to see some stipulations, in writing,
governing this operation.
Councilmember Charon gave some examples of what she would like to see in
the stipulations.
a. Hours: Monday thru Friday 2:30 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
Saturday 2:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
b. Bike racks provided. :
c. Adult supervision at all times.
d. Designated parking for the professi.onal building across the street.
e. Daily policing of the area for trash, etc.
At this point, it was dec~ided that the only fair course of action was to
continue the Public Hearing and draw upa Resolution for the Special Use
Permit with certain stipulations and present them to Tom Watson and the
interested citizens for consideration. This would also give Councilmember
Ulrick time to listen to the tape and make a fair decision in the voting.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to continue the Public Hearing
on October 6, 1981, and directing the staff to prepare a resolution for
a Special Use Permit with stipulations governing the operation of this arcade.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Acting Mayor Polston closed the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
Acting Mayor Polston opened the Public Hearing and asked for any comments
or objections from the public. Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing.
Charon moved and Pol..ston seconded the following Resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-317
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
AS SUBMITTED.
The following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Charon, Polston and
Ulrick. Councilmember Swenson and Mayor Lindlan were absent. Motion carried.
Councilmember Charon.left at this point. Councilmember Swenson returned
and Acting Mayor Polston gave the Mayor's chair back to Mayor Lindlan.
PUBLIC HEARING-- STREET VACATION - OXFORD LANE FROM 'HANOVER TO ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has approved this
vacation of the undeveloped street and that there were no objections from any
of the utlity companies as long as a utility easement was retained.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. James.Broucksou and Mr. Philip Hofherr were present. They are the
abutting property owners on each side of this proposed vacation.
Mrs. Jeannette Rivers was present and had no objection to vacating except
that there are alot of undeveloped lots in the area.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-318 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
VACATE OXFORD LANE FROM HANOVER ROAD TO ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
AND RETAIN OUR UTILITY EASEMENT.
134
September 29, 1981
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - STREET VACATION - WEST PORTION OF LANGDON LANE CUL-DE-SAC
ABUTTING LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 1, MACK'S ADDITION
The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has approved the
vacation, that the cul-de-sac is only platted and not actually there,
and that the utilities had no objections.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Doris Macius and Mr. George Milford, neighbors to Mr. John
Munkelwitz who requested the vacation, had no objections to the
vacation and asked if the entire cul-de-sac could be vacated.
They were informed that they would have to put in an application
for vacation and another Public Hearing held in order to give notice
to the affected property owners.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Lindlan stated that he was solidly against the vacation because he
feels that the cul-de-sac will be needed in the future, and there is no
turn around now unless you pull into a private driveway.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-319 RESOLUTION TO coNCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
VACATE THE WEST PORTION OF LANGDON LANE CUL-DE-SAC
ABUTTING LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK 1, MACK'S ADDITION, J
RETAINING OUR UTILITY EASEMENTS.
three in favor with Mayor Lindlan voting nay. Motion
The vote was
carried.
APPLICATION FOR STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION - FERNSIDE LANE
The City Manager presented a petition, signed by residents of Fernside Lane,
requesting a street light to be placed half way between each corner and
asked what the policy was on putting a str&et light in the middle of the
street. The Council said that policy has been to put in street lights at
the corners first unless there was a real problem.
Lindlan moved and Ulrick seconded a motion for the City Manager to review
this situation and come back to the Council with his recommendation.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS BY CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked for any comments or suggestions by citizens present.
Orv Fenstad: Liked the spirit at the Council table with the City Manager.
Was concerned about torn up road, due to construction, on
County Road 15 & Lynwood Blvd., Auditors Road and County
Road llO and ~he access to County Road 110 at Continental
Telephone.
Also would like someone to talk to the County about the
driveway into the Masonic Lodge.
DISCUSSION ITEMS - MINNEGA~OFRANCHISE AND CABLE TV
The City Manager informed the Council that Minnegasco's Franchise with the
City of Mound will expire at the end of this year. He recommends that the
Council amend.the ordinance to include a franchise fee for Minnegasco to
operate in the City. 'There was discussion on this and some research will
be done and brought back to the Council before a Franchise is approved.
135
September 29, 1981
CABLE TV
Discussion on getting other communities to go into this cooperatively
and whether it is feasible for the City to run such a franchise as a way
to generate revenue. This will be checked into further and brought back
to the Council for review.
3.2 BEER PERMIT - MOHAWK JAYCEE'S
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion granting a charitable organization,
the Mohawk Jaycees of-Westonka, a 3.2 Beer License for October 30, 1981.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
AUDIT CONTRACT FOR 1982
The City Manager recommended retaining the same firm, George M. Hansen, P.A.,
for the 1981 Audit.
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a'motion to approve the George M. Hansen
Company, P.A., to conduct the 1981 Audit for the City of Mound and have
their report in no later than March 30, 1982. The vote was unanimously i~
favor. Motion carried. ~
PAYMENT OF DEFERRED ASSESSMENT - ARDELL ZIEBELL
The City Manager explained that Ardell Ziebell, 1724 Sumach Lane,
PID #13-11.7-24 11 0038 has paid off her deferred assessment for the 1979
Street Improvement and that he needs a Resolution to send to the County
so that-they will delete this from their records.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-320 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PAYMENT OF DEFERRED ASSESSMENT FOR 1979
STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM ARDELL ZlEBELL, PID #13-117-24 11 0038
AND NOTIFYING THE COUNTY TO DELETE FROM THEIR RECORDS.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING - ANNUAL CONTRACT
The City Manager explained that this is Part of the City Employee Fringe
Benefit Package and asked for authorization to sign the contract.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-321 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF
COUNSELING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN - FOR THE YEAR 1982.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REFUND OF DOCK PERMIT FEES
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-322 RESOLUTION APPROVING REFUNDS FOR PERSONS PAYING DOCK
FEES AND NOT ASSIGNED TO A DOCK (AS PER LIST FROM THE
DOCK INSPECTOR.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
136
September 29, 1981
DOCK REPORT
The City Manager went over the report submitted by the Dock Inspector.
Summary was: 380 assigned dock sites
38 people sharing docks
31 Senior Citizen docks
21 people paid fee and did not install a dock
7 sailboat buoy.permi~issued
REBATE DISEASED TREES
Polston moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-323 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REBATES FOR DISEASED TREES
AS SUBMITTED BY THE TREE INSPECTOR (REBATE LIST #21)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Polston moved and Swenson seconded a motion to approve the payment of the
bills as submitted on the pre-list in the amount of $46,334.36, when funds
are available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. MOtion passed.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
APPOINTING'ACTING CITY CLERK AND ACTING CITY TREASURER
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following.resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-324 RESOLUTION APPOINTING JUDITH A. FISHER AS THE ACTING
CITY CLERK AND MARJORIE STUTSMAN AS THE ACTING CITY
TREASURER.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ARENA
Mayor Lindlan feels that the School District will be asking us for help
on engineering costs and input on the design of the parking lots and
access points to County Road 110 for the arena. The Council felt that
if the City of Mound were asked that Spring Park and Minnetrista should
also be asked to contribute because their residents will also be using
this facility. No action taken.
WESTONKA TAXI
The City Manager reported that he has been contacted by their insurance
carrier and told that Westonka Taxi's insurance is being cancelled and
therefore their License to operate in the City of Mound will have to be
revolked. No Action.
COUNCILMEMBER SWENSON
Councilmember Swenson would like some action by the City staff on the
following:
1. At the corner of Devon. and Manchester there is a hedge that is
approximately 8' high and could cause an accident because you
cannot see around the corner.
2. There are also 2 large fish houses on City property at the
corner of Waterbury and Tuxedo that you cannot see around at the
corner and could also cause an accident.
3. There is a boathouse on the Devon Commons that has been completely
remodeled without a building permit about 2 years ago and should
not even be there.
137
September 29, 1981
The Building Inspector stated that this Devon Commons item was given to
the City Attorney 2 years ago.
The City Manager will check on the other two items and with the City Attorney
and report back to the Council.
STREET LIGHTS - DOWNTOWN CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 110 AND 15
The City Manager explained that the two street lights on the corner of
County Road 110 and 15 on the signal lights would be different than the rest
of the street lights unless we pay the county the difference between those
arms and bases and the ones that we want.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion authorizing payment to the County
of $204.00 for 2 arms and $280.00 for 2 bases for the two street lights at the
Corner of County Roa~ 110 and 15. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
LMCD
Councilmember Polston explained that he has talked to our State Legislator
about disbanding the LMCD. Polston would like to see the DNR and the cities
administer the policies of the LMCD and the LMCD disbanded because 75% of
the monies collected goes into salaries.
The Council decided to have our LMCD representative, OF~ Fenstad, come and
speak to the Council about this before initiating any action.
~EW-STREET LIGHTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA
The City Manager explained that the specs were written to be as open as
possible so no one street light manufacturer would end us having exclusive
bid so the specs said "this light or approved equal". Therefore the
contractor, who got the bid, says that the ITT light is the equi'valent
of the McGraw-Edison light, which was the one that everyone wanted.
The McGraw-Edison light could be supplied but at an additional cost of
from $5000.00 to $7000.00.
John Cameron said the NSP has parts and will maintain them for either light.
The Council felt that they wanted the McGraw-Edison light because of the
shape and did not want the ITT light.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion directing the Engineer to reject
the street light from ITT because the light does not meet specifications
and is not the equivalent to the McGraw-Edison light. The vote was
uanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CHANGE ORDER #2 - HARDRIIVES
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION 81-325 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - STATE AID
PROJECT N0.145-101-06 (TUXEDO BLVD.) IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1975.O0.
The vote'was unanimousl.y in favor. Motion carried.
138
September 29, 1981
Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded at motion to adjourn at ll:O0 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor. So adjourned.
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, Secretary
BILLS ..... SEPTEMBER 29, 1981
Acro-Minnesota 67.37
Badger Meter 139.19
Burlington Northern 533.33
Chaska Yamaha 103.74
Commissioner of Revenue 3,581.32
Dock Refunds 632.50
Dust Coating, Inc. 16,190.70
Davies Water Equip 235.56
Jon Elam 29.35
Henn Co. Finance 510.00
IBM 63.25
Wm. Koenig 258.00
MacQueen Equip 26.24
Mound Super Valu 23.97
Mound Postmaster 100.00
" " 78.39
Metro Waste Control 14,987.25
NSP 1,O31.99
Poucher Printing 274.40
Reo Raj Kennels 308.50
Swenson Nursery 51.33
Tri State Drilling 1,297.75
Travis Rock & Sand 87.50
Xerox 572.68
Griggs, Cooper 1,408.91
Johnson Bros. Liquor 2,729.94
Ed Phillips & Sons 1,Oll.20
TOTAL BILLS 46,334.36
SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
139
September 30, 1981
Pursuant to due call and not[ce thereof a special meeting of the City Council of
the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at Shirley Hills
Elementary School, 2450 Wilshire Blvd. in said City on September 29, 1981, at
7:00 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers, Robert Polston, and
Gordon Swenson. Councilmembers Pinky Charon and Don Ulrick were absent for
the first few minutes of the Meeting. Also present were: City Manager,
Jon Elam; City Attorney, Curt Pearson; City Engineer, Skip McCombs and persons
from his staff John Cameron and John Christianson.
The Mayor presented an affidavit of Publication in the official newspaper of
the notice of Public Hearing on said.1980-81 Street Improvement Assessments.
The Mayor then opened the Public Hearing for input on said 1980-81 Street
Assessments.and explained that this Public Hearing is for general questions and
comments on the assessments to be levied.
Councilmember Charon arrived.
The City Attorney explained the legal basis for the hearing.
The City Engineer explained the construction work completed and the final
costs for each project.
The following persons were present with questions or comments:
Norbert Ebert, 2600 Commerce Blvd, Mound, MN.
Question: Why were all the streets and curbs around the parks done this
year?
Answer: The parks were not all done this year. Parks are assessed back to
the City therefore, those assessments are spread over the whole
city not just the people being assessed for this project.
Audrey Luse, 2017 Arbor Lane, Mound, MN.
Comment: Didn't think Arbor Lane was to be done at all.
Answer: Arbor Lane has been in the plans since the preliminary plans
were accepted.
Del Matheison, 2032 Arbor Lane, Mound, MN.
Comments: Agreements were made with Mr. Lyle Swanson or the residents
would not have given easements.
Mr. Matheisoon and Ms. Audrey Luse were asked to see John Cameron in
the next room regarding the problems with Arbor Lane and he would explain
and be able to show them a map that would solve where the 200' of Arbor
Lane started.
Seahorse Association (represented by Jim Murdo, Pres. of the Assoc.,
5440 Three Points Blvd., Mound, MN.
Comments: No arguement about the work done. Arguem~nt is with the unit
charge of 3/4 unit per condominium. There are 160 families
in these units paying $194,000.00 of the cost of Three Points
Blvd. Front footage and square foot charges are alright. They
feel their unit charge should only be 40, 50 or 60% of the
total cost because of the way they use the property.
The Seahorse has filed a formal objection, in writing, to the unit charge.
14o
September 29, 1981
Delmer Pferfer, 3137 Inverness Lane, Mound, MN.
Question: Does the Council fee that the deferred assessment earned
income amount may be changed?
Answer: No. The Council feels that SIO,O01.O0 is a fair figure.
Comment: Pferfer felt-$11,O00.O0 would be a fairer figure.
Roy O'Donnell, 3207 Charles Lane, Mound, MN.
Comment: Streets were done over the past 3 or 4 years and he felt
all should have been assessed at one time to cut costs.
Answer: They could not do all streets at once so the worst streets
were done first. It is also not feasible, in the bonding
aspect, to handle the assessments in that manner.
Bob Gove, 5789 Elm Road, Mound, MN.
Question: Why were General Revenue Bonds not used so residents could take
this off their income tax?
Answer: The Council considered this, at the time, but overall it was
not a fair ~a¥ to do it as some parcels would be paying almost
nothing and l°ther parcels more than their share.
A1Blackwell, 5057 Three Points Blvd., Mound, MN.
Comment: When he purchased this property 3 years ago, a then member of
the City COuncil and the City Engineer assured him that there
would be nO assessment on this road as it was already paved.
Question: Is there ~ny proposed change in the assessment?
Answer: No proposed ichange as everybody in the City has been assessed
according tO this formula.
Larry Oman, 4856 Hanqver Road, Mound,
MN.
Question: If construction corrections are not completed by the end of
this year,i does he have any other ~ay to get it done? Could
the City Withhold payments to the contractor?
Answer: The City Staff will do everything in their power to rectify
any construCtlon problems. Control. over the contractors is
limited as ~.y/state legislation you can only withhold 5% and
the contrac~o[ can post things of value and collect all the
money. Butjt~e contractor must file a 1 year maintenance
bond with the/City for the street improvements. The Council
recognizes lltf- ' responsibility to protect the people so that
the road will/last by doing maintenance.
The Council acknowledge~ -eceipt of 6 written objections or problems from
the people, i
The Mayor asked if ther~ ~ere anymore questions or comments. There were none.
The Mayor closed the Publ c Hearing at 9:05 P.M.
Charon moved and Swenso~ ~econded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-326 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS
PRESENTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, CORRECTING THOSE
TECHNICAL ERRORS RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY THE
CITY STAFF - 1980-81 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Roll call vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
141
September 29, 1981
Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following res01uti0n.
RESOLUTION 81-327 RESOLUTION NOTING THAT THE 9 WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
ARE !RECEIVED AND RECORDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THAT THESE PEOPbE HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL.
ly
The vote was unanimous it~ favor, Motion carried.
Councilmember Charon lefl: the meeting at this point.
i
There was ~:onsiderable discussion about the difference between the ITT light
and the McGraw Edison ll'~th · The contractor wants $78.00 extra per light
for the McGraw Edison-li~th and wants to supply the ITT light for the bid
price. Councilmembers P01 .ton, Swenson and Ulrick could not see putting
$78.00 per light into th~ i~cGraw Edison light when the ITT light is an
and the only diffe~el~ce is in shape.
equal
Swenson moved and Ulrick IS,.~conded a motion to approve the ITT light,
Series 14 - 250 watt tumtin.~ire, brown color. The following voted in favor
thereof: Councilmembers jP,,lston, Swenson and Ulrick. Mayor Lindlan
voted nay. Motion carr~edl
Mayor Lindlan noted that ht; voted .nay because he did not want the ITT
light on the poles that We'e ordered.
Ulrick moved and Polston is ;conded a motion to adjourn at 9:35 P.M.
The vote was unanimously !i:~ favor. Motion carried.
Fran Clark, Secretary
Jon Elam, City Manager
CITY OF MOU~D
Mound, MinnesOta
NOTICE OF NEARINGiON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
I
ANDSEWER BILLS
DELINQUENT WATER
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NoTIcE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Counc!l of the City of Mound will
meet at the City Ha11,5341Maywood Road, MOund, Minnesota, at 7;30 p.m.
on October 6, 1981, to hear, consider and pass on all written and
oral objections, if any, to the proposed assessment on the following
parcels of land for:
Unpaid Water and Sewer Bills:
Property Identifaction
~#13-117-24-13-~007
#13-117-24-11-0091
#13-117-24-12-0093
#13-117-24-11-0072
#18-117-23-23-0009
#14-.117-24-42'0015
#13-117-24-43-0011
#23-117-24-34-0007
#23-117-24-13-0025
#24-117u24-11-DO12
#19-117-23-3~-0041
#19~117-23-33-0201
#24-117-24-44-0081
#24-117-24-12-0118
$53.55
S28.60
$87.64
$78,~48
$52'.00
$39.90
$156.12
$55.90
$73.94
$41.60
$123.50
$86.96
~86.oo
$~o8.oo
An owner may appeal an assessment to dist .ct court pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 429.081 by! serving notice /of the appeal upon the Mayor or
Clerk-Treasurer of the City within 30 days ]after the adoption of the assess-
ment and filing such notice With the distrilct court within ten days after
service upon the Mayor or Cl~erk-Treasurer. !
No such appeal as to the a~unt of an asses!sment as to a specific parcel
of land may be made unless !the owner has eiither filed a signed written
objection to that assessmeni~t with the City iClerk-Treasurer prior to the
hearing or has presented th~ written objection to the presiding officer
at the hearing. ..
(~i~_y Manager
(published in the Laker September 22, 1981)
City Manager
Jon Elam
Mr. John M6nkelwiitz's Variance application should have accompanied
his street vacat~ion request at the last City Council meeting.
Due to an oversi~e of mine it was not discussed. 'Could this
be placed on the~Council Agenda for the meeting of the 6th of
October?
The enclosures si
Commission, howe~
the street front
read twenty-eighl
ment within the
is twenty-four (~
house and garage
City Inspector
ow his proposal as apprOved by the City Planning
er they made an ~rror of interpretation of
set back somehoW. It should have been and
{28) feet, the itotal amount of the encoach-
itreet front set iback. The proposed garage
i4) feet in widthl and the space inbetween the
is four {4) feeti.
Map 4
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
ZONING
25. O0
A-]
~A~E OF
APl:) LICANT
Address
John Munkel~
PROPERTY
ADDRESS
2239 Langdon Lane
PLAT 61800 PARCEL 6310
Part of 9 IY~,OCK
LoT or N 7½'
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
zle phone
bet ~2-~--~7~/ ADDITION
FEE OWNER (if other than applic ~nt)
Addre s s
TCE- REOUESTED:
[ _ [ ACCESSORY
YARD I~ FT., BmLDIN I
SIDE
YARD
D'
N. C. U.* or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
NO TE:
LOT SQ.
Mack's Addition
Telephone
Numb e r
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
i s--howing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
2. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
locations of all buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
,: by extending survey or drawing. ~
~ 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected
! property owners showing attitude toward
request,
~ .!._.A? '%~ui~ permit mus! be applied for
counciL resolution or variance granted )ecomes null and void.
20~j~ian~e~!are n°~an~_~r_ab~ 4~/ /
'~> AppLIcANT_ ~~ //~~~ DATE
~ithin one year from the date of the ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION
granted in 1977.
Concurring with previous variance that was
DATE 7-27-81
COUNCIL ACTION:
8-11-81 Counhil tabled on.applicant's req~g~tr~LU~Ow,~
Refer to Planning Commission for vacation'~f~l~c 6T ~h'l-k[~'-sac.NO
DATE
*non-conforming use '~3~'
..u~nn.~p5 n ~ Countv . ,~:
Sc-_le: !".= 30'
Dete : 8-10-81
o : Iron marker
I~nd S,~-veyor ,~nd Platter
Long Lake, Mirmesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 31, 198 - Page 2
Nonconforming Useil
Lots 9 and 10, Bl~ck 2, AvalOn 'iii
Nancy O'Brian was~present.
Hanson moved an~ Weiland seco~d~
deck recognizin! all existilnglnC
in favor. "
Front and Side Ya
Lot 39, Phelps Is
Ronald dohnson wa:
Paulsen moved ar
be denied becau~
struction.
The vote was Pal
Swenson - nay.
feels it should
Area; the reaso~
Street Vacation ot
Lot 9, Block !, Ms
John Munkelwitz w~
Weiland moved ar
vacation pendin~
and his approv~r
a motion to approve the request for m
nconformancies. The vote was unanimously
'd Variances:
and Park 1st l) iqision
present~
Id Wei I and $~3conc
;e we have not i
]sen, Pelger'son
Tie vote.i
be allowed as
for setbacks is
Portion ,of Lam
ck's Addition
s present.
d Jackson second
City EngineeK c
g the vacationl.
Hanson moved .ant
conformancies of
approval of the
of a proposed ad
Nonconforming Use
Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Shadywood
Keith Kullberg was present.
ed a motion to recommend that variances
the past granted a variance on new con-
nd Weiland - aye; Hanson, Jackson and
n for the nay votes - unique situation/
ng as it abuts~ the Planned Development
to maintain safety.
~on Lane Cul-de-sac
~d a motion to recommend approving the
~ecking out to determine if it is as shown
The.vote was unanimously in favor
Street Front and ~. de Yard Varia;nc;s
Jackson moved a i, Hanson iseconde a motion to recommend that an
yard variance be~ granted land, in, the event the vacation is not apprOVed,
that a 14 foot ~treet front var i~nce also be granted. The vote was ~Jnmnl-
mously in favor.I ·
,
Nonconforming Use/Street FrOnt & S deyard Setbacks
Lots 14 and 15, Bl:)ck 5, De!von
Dan Christianson ~s presenit.
Jackson se~on~le a motion to acknowledge the exising non-
the street frpn and sideyard setbacks, and to recommend
deck builit witho t a permit and also to recommend approvml
dition foir ~ g~r Ige. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Point
Paulsen moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approval of
the street front and side yard v~riances. The vote was unanimously In
favor. ~
10.
Nonconforming Use
Lot 2, Block 2, Shadywood Point
Wayne Burkhalter was present.
Planning Commission Y, inutes
July 27, 1981 - Paoe 2
6. Subdivision of Land
Lot 9 end W. 1/2 of Lot 10, Halstead Height
ORichard Olexa was present. ~,.;. ~
Weiland moved and O'bonn~ll seconded a
be approved contingent off there being a
parcel designated as A-2 from County Roa
in favor.
Ye
Side Yard Variance
Lot 4 and E. 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1, The H
Lon Brush was present.
ion to recommend that division
al description of access to
110. The vote was unanimously
hlands
e
Weiland moved and Hansoql seconded a mot
variance to build a 22'~X 24' gaj~age du,
there now and applicant~has letters
the stipulation that gal be built no
ty line.- All voted in avor except
placement of proposed rage not presen
Nonconforming Use
Lot 6, Block 1, Woodland
Mike Bennett was present
iht
Hanson moved and Pauls~
undersized lot,-to appl
closer than'it is now
4 foot wide catwalk;
seconded a mot
the expansic
also. approve
vote. was una
Front and Side Yard Vari
Part of Lot 9 lying Sout
John Munkelwitz was pres
Discussed applicant's
same size garage except
has been a change in the
not shown. Possibility
O'Donnell moved and W
with previous variant
in favor.
10. Conditional Use Permit
Part of Lot 27, Lafayet
Steve Codden was preset
Weiland moved and O'
conditional use perm
that there be no var
n to recommend approval of a
to fact that there is a building
neighbors on either side with
ess than 2 feet from the proper-
voted against. Reason--accurate
on recognizing the nonconforming
of the street front setback no
a 2 foot sideyard variance for a
mously in favor,
of' North 7½ ~e t, Block I, Macks Addn.
Uest fo~ Yar!ar~esa gra t in es. 77-355; wants
o have ~t detac~edj and 3.6 feet from house. There'
cul -de-~ac.
Placement of where road is now is
vacation wasi~iscussed.~ ~
iland seconded motion to recommend concurring
that was gra~t.d in 1977. The vote was unanimously
or Multiple
e Park
~nnell seconded
t as long as al
ances granted.
ling
motion to recommend approval of the
ordinances of the City are met and
vote was unanimously in favor.
11. Subdivision of Land
Lot 5 and. Part of Lot £, Block 8 and
Applicant not present. Item placed
ts 6,7,8 & E.½ of 9, Block ~2, Whipple
bottom of agenda.
77
8
355
9 77
NO. 7' 355
RESOLUTION
COMMISSION T
CONCUR
APPROVE
REQ
THE PLANNING
VARIANCE AS
WHEREAS,
owners of property
have requested a fr¢
side yard setback
~escribed a,s
yard setba
4 feet 6
9, Block 1, Mack's Add'n
Z0 feet 0 inches and a
and
WHEREAS,
EREAS,
it was brought out t
line so eventually
loo~ed, and
the Planning
side yard varianc
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
The Council concurs
and aoproves the front
e City
water line
ssion
sement on the North lot
Lane can be
[ds the front yard and
O .VED c T¥ COUNC., or MOU D,
the Plannit§ ~nmission recommendation
t side yard v~r~nces as requested.
Be it further stipulated tl at the eave
e a minimum overhang
Adopted by Council this 9th da of August,
OFFICE OF PLANNING
2308 Gow 'nment
Minneapc ,s,
(612) 348- t466
September 24, 1981
Mr. John Elan, City Mana!
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Urban Hennepin Coun'
Program/Administrati
Dear John:
If you have any question.,
':Housing
,e Reimbu
The accompanying resoluti m authoril
ment for program adminisi ration was
participating Urban Couni ~ Commun'
to authorizing the admin~ ;trative
Hennepin County to serve ~$ the
Rehabilitation Grant Pro( ,am within
the Resolution be considi ,ed by the
provide for a continuity n adminiSi
rehabilitation grant pro! 'am. ~
contact
Si ncerely,
La~rr Blackstad
SeniOr Planner
pb
Enclosure
ENT ,~~,,
55487
tation Grant
administrative reimburse-
ly distributed to the
~ugust 24, 1981. In addition
the resolution authorizes
tor for the CDBG funded Housing
it is requested that
:il as soon as possible to
of the CDBG funded housing
48-5859.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
DATE:
L~ N'IE~=~] FROM:
SUBJECt:
August
Pa rtl
Henn(
and: !
RESOI
ADMIt
CDBG
1
Communi ti es , ~~.
t
EFFECTUATE SEVEN PERCENT.
REI~URSEMENT RELATIVE TO
EHABILITATION G~NT PROGRAM
The accompanying resoluti, is pro~
reimbursement.
The resolution covers the
cooperation agreement for
includes authorization
The. resolution also
CD funded Housing Rehabili
eriOd Ji
VII
the
zes Hem
G]
Without passage of the lution,
the program within your ty.
If you have any questions, Please
ffectuate subject administrative
11, to July 1, 1982. The new
iDBG program beginning July 1, 1982,
to continue administering the
wi thin your community.
could not continue to administer
em to Mark Elmberg, 348-6680.
pb
EnclOsure
A RESOLUTION ADOI
HOU~
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
WHEREAS, the City of
Community Development Bloc
for low and moderate incor
WHEREAS, the Departm,
uniform procedures be est~
Housing Rehabilitation Gr~
Grant
nt of Ho~
blished
nt
WHEREAS, Urban Hennep~in
Procedural Guides to be a~ted by
including ;llndl~
WHEREAS, Hennepin Cou~gy has,
Rehabilitation Grant Program w'ithi
of the monies allocated t~§ousing
,o. THEREFORE BE RESOLV that
Guides for the CDBG Year V)~ Housi
the City of ; ~!d
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED tha~)iHennepi
CDBG funded Housing Rehabi)l)itation-~
The question was on the ad tion
thereon, the following rot ~in
and the following voted ag iinst
WHEREUPON SAID RESOLUTION
OF ,
ATTEST:
city clerk
DES FOR THE CDBG YEAR VII
GRANT,PROGRAM
allocated monies from its Year VII
'ovideilhousing rehabilitation grants
drban Development requires that
lion of the CDBG Year VII
i,
g~antee has developed 1981-82
ng subgrantee communities,
ter the CDBG funded Housing
for seven percent (7%) of the total
ltion. ':
(ennepiinCounty 1981-82 Procedural
tationi~ Grant Program be adopted by
s herebyl requested to administer the
Iram within the City.
ution and upon a vote being taken
)o
AND ADOPTED THIS
i
DAY
.-I
~gncl lmembe
the
'117-23 3~
· 117-24 41
· 117-24 32
,117-24
'117-2q 21
The
voted In
the
with the !
whereupon
and hls si
October 6, 1981
.ved the followlng resolution.
I! RESOLUTIiON NO. 81-
'I~IG OEFERRE0 AND SUPPLEi~ENTAL ASSESSHENT5
DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT;
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
~ursuant to I~lnnesota Statutes Chapter 42~, (Laws
as ameq~ded) has the power to levy supplemental
power to levy deferred assessments, and
~llessmenl~s ~ere not Inltlally levled In the projects
at~ waivers?of formality for supplemental and deferred
g been executed by the property owner and delivered to
ts autho~ity under Chapter 42~, l~innesota Statutes
~ncli doesJhereby determine that each of the parcels
i!nafter described have benefited in an amount equal
,t set opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of
indlca~ed and that they be, and hereby are, assessed
set opposite each such described parcel, and each
~ntai and deferred assessment shall be payable In equal
1merits OVer such period of years as shown:
No. : Improvement - Years Amount
SUpp. 1~)79 St. Impr.(7928) I~ $7,734.82
Supp. 1~)7~)St. Impr.(7~)28) 11~ 828.80
Supp. 1~7~ St. Impr.(7~)28) 1~ 4,3~0.86
Supp. 1~)7~)St. Impr.(7~28) 1~ 1,t+63.63
$upp. 197~ St. Impr.(7~28) 14 2.t667.O~
i ! ' Total $" 17,O85.20
ments Sh~11 be payable as follows: The first of the
to be payable on or before the first Ronday In danu-
shall bear Interest at the rate of 8.__~ per annum
e of the adoption of this assessment resolutlon. To
~stallment shall be added Interest on the entire assess-
date of this resolutlon untll December 31, 1~)82. To
Jent lnst~allment, when due, shall be added interest for
ail unp&ld Installments. ,
r any property so assessed may, at any time prior to
~n of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the
sment on such property, to the City Treasurer,
shall be charged if the entire assessment
thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolu-
may, at any time thereafter pay to the County Treasurer,
amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest
Oecemberi31 of the year In v~hZch such payment Is made.
hall forthwlth transmit a certtfled dupllcate of this
to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax
le County~ and such assessments shall be collected and
In the same manner as other municipal taxes.
:Ion of the foregoing resolutlon was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon; the following
the sa~e:
absent:
IOn was declared passed and adopted, slgned by the ~ayor
~ted by the City ~anager.
.........
RE
ANI
the
! 95:
~EAS,
as
ass
1.
-117-2~
-117-2~ 2
~e motion
in
:he follow
Hth the
Ind hls sl
RESOLUTIOI
lNG DEFERREI
CATIOI
pursuant
as amend
ithe power!
sessments.
waivers
· been exec
Its authorl
does h
~lnafter d~s
It set oppos
,as indtcalte
~t set oppos
an~ d
imentS Ore
No.
:!
iments shal
:s to be. pay~
shal 1 baa
ate of the.a,
Instal lment
the date of
uent instal
al I unpaid
~f any prope
of the a
he assessme~
,t no interes
thin thirty
he may, at a
~ amount Of, t
December 31
shall forthv
to the tour
he County, ~
in the same
ion of the
and up~
alnst the sa
absent:
ion was dec1
sted by the
October 6, 1981
lowing resolution.
NO. 81-
AND SUPPLEHENTAL ASSESS'HENTS
DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT;
TO THE COUNTY AUOITOR
:O Minnesota Statutes Chapter q29, (Laws
~d) has the power to levy supplemental
levy deferred assessments, and
re not initially levied In the projects
f formality for supplemental and deferred
ted by the property owner and delivered to
under Chapter ~29, Minnesota Statutes
sreby determine that each of the parcels
:ribed have benefited In an amount equal
ire each of the said parcels by virtue of
and that they be, and hereby are, assessed
ire each such described parcel, and each
~ferred assessment shall be payable In equal
such period of years as shown:
mprovement Years Amount
). Sewer 3180 3. $ 97.33
pP. Sewer 3180 3 $292.00
Total $389.33
be payable as follows: The first of the
)la on or before the first Monday in Janu-
· Interest at the rate of f, ~ per annum
Ioptlon of this assessment resolutlon. To
~hall be added Interest on the entire assess-
:his resolution untll December 31, 1982. To
iment, when due, shall be added Interest for
Installments.
'ty so assessed may, at any time prior to
ssessment to the County Auditor, pay the
t on such property, to the City Treasurer,
t shall be charged if the entire assessment
(30) days from the adoption of this resolu-
ny time thereafter pay to the County Treasurer,
he assessment remaining unpaid, with Interest
of the year In which such payment Is made.
ith transmit a certified duplicate of this
ty Auditor to be extended on the proper tax
nd such assessments shall be collected and
manner as other munlclpal taxes.
foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
)n vote being taken thereon; the following
Ired passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
;ity Manager.
Hayor
~HERI
nber
RESOLUTI
UPON WA
ANO
the City
1953, Ch
the foil
as indic
the Cit~
I. PUt
the
of
in
12 O0
0C
0C
18 -23 32
13 ~40I
motion
in
follow
dth the
his si
i October 6, 1981
~e folloWinl'g resolutton,
UT~ON NO;' al-
:ERRED AN~ ~UPPLEHENTAL ASSESSHENTS
JTIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT;
CATION TOiTHE COUNTY AUDITOR'
uant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter ~29, (Laws
amended) 'h&s the power to levy supplemental
to I~v7 deferred assessments, and
mis were not Inltlally levied In the projects
of fprmallty for supplemental and deferred
executed!b:y the property owner and delivered to
uthorlty.unider Chapter ~2~, Hinnesota Statu{es
does hereb~ determine that each of the parcels
:er described have benefited in an amount equal
:opposite each of the said parcels by virtue of
~dlcated and that they be, and hereby are~ assessed
opposite each such described parcel~ and each
and ~eferred assessment shall be payable In equal
ts over ~such period of years as shown:
I~p~ovement Years· Amount
Suppl. Sewer 338R ~ $135.~0
SupP.;$ewer 3~88 ~ $135.60
SupP. iSewer 3388 ~ $135.60
SupP. !Sewer 3388 9 $135.60
Supp.;Sewer 3~88 ~ $271.20
Supp. Sewer 3388 ~ $ ~0.~0
· Total $90~.00
nts shall'be payable as follows: The first of the
be-payable on or before the first Honday in Janu-
hall bea~ I~terest'at the rate of 6 ~ per annum
of the a~o~tion of this a{sessment re--solution. To
:aliment ~hall be added interest on the entire assess-
date of ~this resolution until Oecember 31,.1982. To
~t Installment, when due, shall be added Interest for
I unpaid installments.
property so assessed may, at any time prior to
, of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the
assessme~tlon such property, to the City Treasurer,
,o IntereSt shall be charged if the entire assessment
n thirty (~0) days from the adoption of thls resolu-
may, atlany time thereafter pay to the County Treasurer,
of the assessment remaining unpaid, with Interest
mcember 31 Of the year In which such payment ls made.
all forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
o the County Audttor to be extended on the proper tax
County, and such assessments shall be collected a'nd
the same manner as other munlclpal taxes.
ion of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
and upon vote being taken thereon; the following
ilnst the same:
tg absent:
ion was.d.eclared passed and adopted, signed by the Hayor
by the Crty'Hanager.
~ayor
t
tt
The motion
Councl
~Oted In
~he follow
With the
and his
purSuapt
as ia.e.
the pOWer
ssessmentp
at wa I yetis
been iexec
I ts author
l i does
~t set
as [ndtCat
October 6, 1981
moved t~ ollowing resolution.
'RESQLUPI'IDN NO. 81-
DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS S; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT;
)N TO.THE COUNTY AUDITOR
to Hinnesota Statutes Chapter q29, (Laws
ded) has the power to levy supplemental
levy deferred assessments, and
not lnltlally legled In the projects
)f formality for supplemental and deferred
uted by the property owner and delivered to
ty under Chapter 42~, Minnesota Statutes
determine that each of the parcels
scribed have benefited In an amount equal
site each of the sald parcels by virtue of
ad and that they be, and hereby are, assessed
site each such described parcel, and each
~eferred assessment shall be payable In equal
ar such period of years as shown:
Improvement Years Amount
'ree Removal 3 $375.00
No.
I Iments sea
to be- pa)
shal) be~
te of the
Instal lment
the date of
uent lnsl:al
all uhpalc
any
ion of the
' asseSsmer
I n~ere:
thin th! rty
he may, a
amountI of
;December
be payable as follows: The first of the
ble on or before the first Monday In Janu-
interest at the rate of 8 ~ per annum
,tion of this assessment resolution. To
1 be added Interest on the entire assess-
resolution untll 0ecember 31, 1982. To
Iment, when due, shall be added interest for
Installments.
rty so assessed may, at any time prior to
to the County Auditor, pay the
on such property, to the Clty Treasurer,
shall be charged If the entire assessment
30) days from the adoption of this resolu-
time thereafter pay to the County Treasurer.
assessment remaining unpaid, with Interest
of the year In which such payment is made.
shall lth transmit a certified duplicate of this
to the Courty Auditor to be extended on the proper tax
he County, ~ such assessments shall be collected and
;iin the Same as other municipal taxes.
I
ion of the foregolng resolutlon was duly seconded by
and vote being taken thereon; the following
Inst the san
absent:'
was decllred passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
by the Ity Manager.
Mayor
October 2, 1~81
TO: City Counci
FROM: Jon Elam, C
Enclosed for your revi
Formal approval may not
may have.
Thanks.
nd
necesJ
he 198~
.lease
Proposed Dock Application.
~!ve me any thoughts you
Dear Mound Resident:
This is your 1982 Dock Permit
Applications received March 1
~laced in the 3rd priority
NAME
ADDRESS
Mailing address.if summer resi
1981 Permit #
Minimum fee for a permit is $t
a straight dock. Date of birl
Payment of fee must accompany
DOCK SIZE
Straight Dock (Nol
or
"L" - "U" - "T" Dc
Boathouse - inclu~
REQUIRED INFORMATION: List
your dock.
You may share your dock with
I am sharing a dock with
Address
REQUIRED INFORMATION:
boat registration form)
Boat 1
Any false information given ol
or revocation of permit.
I understand' if I allow boats
I violate City of-Mound Ordin~
understand this is an appli,
s granted.
SIGNATURE
DATE
OUND,
on
se compllete and return before March 1st.
~bjecte~ to a late fee of $2.00 and
PHONE NO.
WORK NO.
zen
en
abel on envelope)
YRS OR OLDER) pay $32.50 for
:
PERMIT FEE
$65.00
ies
pe and
$65.00 plus $4.50 per ft.
width over 4' wide
.30¢ per square ft.
minimum fee of $65.OO
ength of each boat moored at
length, include a photocopy of your
.nce 332 is subject to denial
~ermit I~older to be moored at my dock,
dock ca~ be installed until a location
I
FEE PAID
ATE PENALTY
i
October 2, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: Jon Elam, Cit
SUBJECT: CABLE TV
Although I hardly expec
my previous memo to
borders on the unbeliew
In order to counter thi
feedback, I have wri
Spring Park and Minnetr
until after a joint mee
is held.
In the meantime, I thin
it can't be used s.o neg~
consideration of the Cai
such time as a common us
sharing and voting repri
JE:fc
* Copy of draft enclos
'V Comm
iBudget
~result
ils
its
Also
Budget
areas
oped.
472 '~
~ee seems to have ignored
'lan for 1982 that
g possible political
to the Mayors of
off approving this
f all interested cities,
esolution #81-164 so
o vote to suspend any
rogram for 1982 until
f financial cost
75o
i
DRAFT LETTER TO THE MAY
We are in receipt of th
submitted September 25,!
Manager, a number of se~
a. Mound approved
This Budget, as
causing a major
raising the tax
b. This increase r
of it's levy
forwarded, as re(
c. The Cable TV Fo
on May 1, 1981,
in fact, seek t
most generalizel
d. Although the foi
proposal for 19
total cost. Th
in reality, al
e. Mound% cost in
Mound and Sprin
seems fair.
I would like to ask tha
such time as the Mayors
sit down together and
what this money would bi
tentatively scheduled f~
Please let me know
Thank you for your cons
Sincerely,
CITY OF MOUND
Jon Elam
City Manager
JE:fc
MOUND Mi~4N~.S~')TA 5~-,364
i612,~ 472-1
SPRIN~ PARK AND ST. BONIFACIU$
~e's bu~,
~1 caus~
et fo~
noti( ~d, was a tight one
~ecs-: w~! e at the same time
levyi~ to the absolute limit
All th1 information has been
ty andl he State.
ipted,
~ e the Mound City Council,
:his rig t financial situation or,
lcial .i~ ues in anything but a
I¥ fa!ri the actual cost of their
beingI sked to carry 84% of the
at way o force Mound to carry,
rt.
cos~ i°f Spring Park%, while
icy VOting power. This hardl~'~'
et proposal that was
.me, as Mound City
ude:
982 on September 10, 1981.
arliest convience.
~rove t~i
cf the!, [
*ant thi.,
mderstCr
)ctober
t your{
I
s Budget for 1982 until
articipating cities Can
effort to go and, in fact,
d it, this meeting is
Cable T.V. Committee &
Mound, Minne tris ta, S
Subject: Cable T.V. 19
The 1982 Cable Televisi~
dollars. Based on a Ma
city will participate
memorandum No. 81-164 ii
The request for 1982
: % Po
Mound .6243
Minnetrista .2225
Spring Park .0969
St~Bonifacius .0563
* Credit
Council members requiril
representative.
Cable Representative
City of Spring Park
Enc.
Siptember 25, 1981
if ac
fiv~ thousand ($5000.00)
the c~ble committee each
· pogUlation, a copy of
i1981 Total
i$750.00 $4994.40
1750.00 1780.00
i~750.00 775.20
* ~750.00 450.40
~3000.00 $8000.00
ma~contact their cable
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81
SUBJECT: Cable T.¥.
Attached is a copy of th~
The Committee has arrive(
T.V~ Committee based on
for 1981 which i$ as fol
Mound
Minnetrista
Sprling Park
St.! Bonifa,
In order to begi!n divid
passed by the COuncil a
The Cable T.V. Commi
they have a reccmmendati
All costs for c(msultant
are granted.
,ble T,
Committee.
de all costs of the
s population estimate
ion Percent
390
;60
~00
.6243%
.2225
.O969
.0563
1.0OO0
resolution should be
nga consultant. When
the Council for approval
)y the winning bidder when permit
: smart
(612f 472*'~
October 2, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: Jon Elam, Ci
SUBJECT: Zuckman Case
Enclosed is a letter I
Melvin Zuckman Case.
I would li'ke to 'suggest
l. Executive Sessior
2. To outline where
prepared by Jim
3. Some pertinent i
Meetings.
I have sought to seek a
protracted and expensiw
point of view a mistake
thought one more month
might be wise. I have
n M. ~tlie regarding the
g in older to review the letter.
Jr step~ might be (legal documents
~g the ase from past Council
matte', ih order to avoid a
~s may be from the Council's
has 'one on forever, I
ts ~aknesses and strengths,
JE:fc
May 22 1979 ~
Councilmember Withhart moved the
RESOLUTION
ON TRACT A
BY FIRE &
CONS'
WHEREAS, Melvin Zuckman is
in the City of Mo~
WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of th,
the aid and assis
cipal planning ac
community, and
WHEREAS, the City has adopl
the intent of sai
ing and land use
t~e adoption'df-ar
aid and assist
present and future
WHEREAS, the City did prov
protect existing
protecting the ~r
or property wi
WHEREAS, Courts throughout
uses;as a method
ises on zoning
uses may be lost
WHEREAS, Section 23.20 of
gulations regardi
City Code.states
"Any building whic
wind, water, or.e)
that no building
district in which
destroyed to the
or reconstructed
extend of damage
appointed agent."
WHEREAS, the property local
Teact A, RLS 1150
the.following reas
~) Contains two
which is zone
3 hoUsing'~m'i]
b) Building A
and it is fur
1) a minor
~soluti
LOCATED
MORE DESTROYED
TO !BUILD & RE-
NG
lo ated at 5012 Tuxedo Blvd.
s auth)rize~' the City Council with
~iannin. Commission to carry out muni-
d~ve and improvement of our
ce, C~apter 23 of the City Code, and
:orrect past errors in plattinq, build-
:ook place in the City'prior to-
ions o planfiihg:thought and to direct~
al baS s ~hroughout the community for
~e for non-conforming uses to
to me~t constitutional requirements
rners aid to prevent the taking of 'lands
~ompens.~t ion, and
ly' recogni zed non-conformi ng
iproper rights but Courts and treat-
iformly agreed that non-conforming
including destruction, and
inan;es relates to and provides re-
ises Sec. 23.20, Subd. "g" of the
iged or'd'estroyed by fire, earthquake,
tored r_o its former use, provided .
t° the requirements of the use
which is thus partially damaged.or
cent (;O%) or more, may be rebuilt
~oses o
I'1 be
e~
ickman
conformity. Estimate of the
de by the City Council or its
and legally described as
nd is a non-conforming use for
(he ~ses) on one parcel 6f land
i.(Singl,~ Family); said structures had
ly dis:rict.
~e stru;t'ure involved in the request-
becm~se of
defi [ency (1/4 of a foot)
2)
it is buil~ 13
a 50 foot
va r i a n ce
c)
Building B is
setback violal
1) a deck i
dinance
2) the stru
quires 21
and
WHEREAS, BuiJlding A was dam
building permits a!
reconstruction of
struction and stop
building permits a
has applied for a
ance, and has aske,
tended that Buildii
more", and
WHEREAS, the City's Plannin
it was very diffic~
by the fire becaus,
structure before t!
possible to determ
structure, and the
determine the ques
owner's request fo
WHEREAS, the City directed
structure and to
he did examine the
"Virtually all of
damaged beyond repa
since the fire. Th
but these were prob
A copy'of said repo
marked Exhibit A, a
WHEREAS, the City then con'
for the City of
dicating that a
a~er the fire and
a copy of said app
Treasurer's Office
WHEREAS, the City retained
'~' :i:~. firm, to examine
the before value
examine the premis
nt
220
May 22, '1979
lake front and the ordinance requires
th~ owner is requesting a 37 foot
ack requirements.
re on his parcel and this has two
'rom th neighboring parcel and the or-
~t setback
from he street and the ordinance re-
!he ,erty owner failed to obtain any
iCity al~d State building codes and began
ithe Bu ldin9 Inspector observed this con-
iuse be,:ause the owner had not obtained
a non'conforming use. The'applicant
on-con'~ormin9 use section of the ~rdin-
iom the setback requirements and has con-
ed by :he fire "to'the extent of 50% or
meet ng of March 26, 1979, indicated
ihe per,:entage of structural.damages caused
and replaced portions of the
work; it.was'therefore tm-
the ~fore and after values of this
Comm ssion recommended that this Council
ithe pr,~perty before considering the
mal Engineer, to examine t~e
~lonai ~pinion regarding damages, and
28, t79, and Stated as follows: ~
ers the first floor level up were
haVe }een replaced with new members
ictures in the sub-level block walls,
the f [re."
ihe Ci Clerk/Treasurer's Office and
Count Assessor who acts as the assessor
and fi ed with the Council a report in-
;or's-s!:aff had inspected the premises
to the structure at 50% of its value;
id find ng is on file in the City Clerk/ -
t B; a~dction';~ C-'n° ' i .
: Ins :e s'ultants, a natiOnal '
id.report did not specifically state
t~ey had not had an opportunity to
re and! were unable to give before and
i
221
May 22, 1979
after value, but the prof!essiol
"It must be said her
the structure has
While many of the r~
integrity, in my pr
integritY'unitss ev,
fire would be's~'b
ical if not impossl
of the house would
veloped serious str
to be rebuilt."
'.This Civil and Structur
before and after valuat
the destruction and the!
;Said report, is on file
~Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, this Council, hav
the structurelhad
tion from the City
~ Vice President of
i stated, '
'"It is my opinion t
the home."
it being impossibl
i examined the house
on it by the prope
of said report, is
marked Exhibit D,
'WHEREAS, the Council obtain
' Assessor"s Office
of May 8 indicat
and that in his o
materials. Said 1
office and marked
WHEREAS, the property owner
City Council on
and after valuati
present a copy of
Inc. to do certain
applicant has then!
of what they consi'
A copy of said con
Clerk/Treasurer an
consideration that!
ate the interior of
kitchen cabinets a~¢
. trica'l, work, or extE
sented by the appli~
on the structure, a~
er did istate,
i~atlve work to much of
ning a building permit.
have some structural
not depend upon that
,ber da! ed or scorched by the
ng would be 'impract-
entire frame portion
u the entire chimney de--,'
it would also have
i ty
iewicz, did not make a
onal opinion related to
in the amount of $12,754.
erk/Treasurer and marked
:rmining if 50% or more of
requested additional informa-
requested Edward J. Stanke,
ine the structure, and he has
over 50% damage to
f
pernl
C
figures because he had not
stantial work had been done
after the fire. A copy
:asurer's Office and
.ent
tilk-of the Hennepin County
the City Manager under date
the house is 45.7~ complete,
is being replaced with new
e in the. City Clerk/Treasurer's
lanning Commission and the
~any time presented a before
of property, but did on April 24
Deluxe Builders and Remodelers,
'the sum of $9,260. The
hat $9,260. is less than 50%
~t valU ip'rior to the time of the fire.
~t is file in the office of the City
Thil contract does not take into
furnisJ all roofing material, redecornt't
~urni~h! nd install all interior trim,
lade no provision for plumbing, elec-
~nd the'efore said estimate as pre-'
:e as t, ithe actual work to be done
WHEREAS, the City Council has aske
regarding non-confo~
ported on the case
indicated that if
destroyed, then th
quirements of the
such requirements
WHEREAS, this Council is s'
in its power to fali
coming up with exa
without a building
evidence to the Co
to refute the evid
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~
1. The structure locatb~
Minnetonka i4as damaged
to March of 1979. This
is made by this Council
2. The applicant's req
conforming use is hereby
a. The applicant has c~
reconstruct a struc~
b. The applicant has f~
dicate the structure
· I
c. The property is a
and three dwelling
setback requirement:
d, The request of a lal
· ordinance of the Cit'
ConservatiOn Distr
I
e, It is the finding
fact situation as set
the applicant's probl
tions Was created by
· 1 aws, 'I
3, I.t is a further fine
should be and is hereby deni
adverse and detrimental aff~
City, would, be contrary to C
conforming use which would f~
plan and zoning ordinance of
A motion for the adoption of
member'Polston and upon vote
222
May 22, 1979
Attorr ,y to review the law in Minnesota
luatio~ , and he has done so and re-
wherei~ the Minnesota Supreme Court
structure is substantially
comply with the setback re-
building did not conform to
was adopted, and
and has done everything
but has been frustrated in
ty owner's proceeding
s failure to present any
r Valuation of the structure
staff; ,.
THE CITY OF MOUND:
ted the closest to Lake
or more some time prior
the damage and destruction
subd. "g" of the City Code.
ld and reconstruct this non-
~ing findings:
illegally proceeding to
lding permit.
~ce to this Cou~ciii to in-
'oyed by fire.
contains two s'tkuctures
and does not meet the
is contrary to the zoning
~orm to the Minnetonka Lake
~uncil that based upon the
~visions of this Resolution,
~mma in establishing valua-
:o comply with City and State
:he application for variance
the variance would have an
nd general welfare of the
wou diperpetuate and extend a non-
an4 ~ntent of the comprehensive
~oluti, duly seconded by Council-
ti ~_!following voted in favor thereof;
223
May 22, 1979
Lovaasen, Polston, Ulrick an
Swenson, whereupon said resO
the Mayor and his signatureI
'i
Attest: ~ctin ty C1
lg voted against the same;
e,d and adopted, signed by
ity Clerk.
Mr. John Elam
City Manager
City of Mound '-
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364'
2909 Bt,
Minne ap o 1 J
(Tract A,
(Resoluti¢
Dear Sir:
To comply with the pre.
during our recent disct
1) I doubt
afforded an adequate h~
based on an
the contents of Resolut
it appears that the er:
reports of Lyle
spection Consultants,
To explain this positi
documents on file in
lution 79-213. In
mate the value of the
any degree of
that this remains an o
were to be approached
basis, for nowhere in
point to the actual
building i~mediately b~
after the fire.
While the record may bI
of Mr. Zuckman in
fully complying with
of explanation and jus'
the fact remains that
before the fire cannot~
by the council--at lea~
P.O. Box 103 3609
1981'
C
~ed
by
~trial procedures covered ~ed as follows:
'~ckman,' has been
in this regard is
record, and especially-
22, 1978, wherein
· council, namely, the
Assessor, Home In-
o the underlying
.OhS reached in Reso-
sses are unable to esti-
~efore the fire with
record indicates
~e is true if the case
instead of a value
the city witnesses
the condition of the
to .ts state immediately
some ~xtent by the actions
.d structure without
comment by way
is made hereafter,
the g i~,~,~ediately
of evidence relied on
392 (612) 471-7585
Mr. John Elsm.
Page 2
September 29, 1981
To conclude my comment on this point, you are referred to that
part of the resolution dealing with the appearance of Mr. Zuckman,
wherein it is stated (Exhibit F attached to the Resolution) that
the sum of'$9,260.00 would be necessary to restore the building.~
This evidence, which traverses the evidence of the city's witneSses,
and thereby puts the actual cost of reconstruction at issue, and
which would be dispositive,-hms not been'contradicted, except by
reference to the probability, or expectation, that Mr. Zuckman
was to furnish some materials or labor, the amount of which either
in dollar values, or otherwise, remains unclear in the Resolution.
Hence, without reaching and determining the specific amount of
the Zuckman contribution to the Deluxe Builders' proposal, the
council's efforts to determine the relevant facts remain incomplete.
2) ~ doubt whether the ordinance can be interpreted to con-
tain a standard which permits the council to decide the Zuckman
case on the basis of cost, only. A review of the ordinance, and
of the city attorney's opinion of it, indicates that the cost of
reconstruction is not a standard upon which a decision can be
made. In State. VS..~ahl, 254 Minn. 349, 95 NW 2d 85, the standard
used by the decision-making body was "substantial destruction",
and the reviewing court upheld the decision, and in so doing, re-
lied on the language of the ordinance. I am satisfied that a
court in review of the Zuckman record, couched as it is in terms
of cost, could not find language in the ordinance to support the
facts and findings appearing in Resolution 79-213.
However, since a reviewing court may look to see if substantial
justice has been afforded to the complaining party, and in that
way overlook or ignore the necessity of a standard, it appears
that even if the city did not have to prove a "cost" standard on
appeal, it would still have to show that Zuckman was afforded a
fair hearing prior to the execution of 79-213. In such case, be-
case of the arguments I have made in Paragraph "1", above, I am
satisfied that the city could not, or probably could not. In any
case, Zuckman, whether represented by me, or someone else, would
put the city to its proof.
~3) 1 doubt whether Zuckman has been heard on all the facts.
If he were allowed to appear and explain his position, he would say
that immediately after the fire, and before he began the recon-
struction, he applied for a building permit. While the record does
not show this fact, at a hearing he would so testify, and thereby
raise the question whether 79-213 is based on a complete record.
He would also show that the reason the permit was not timely issued
was because of the ongoing communications with the city on a staff
level concerning the cost of the reconstruction, a predicate to the
issuance of a permit, and other factors including the necessity,
Mr. John Elam
Page 3
September 29, 1981
in his opinion, to preserve the structure from further damage from
exposure to the weather. He would readily admit that he erred.
in not concentrating his efforts in the procurement of a permit.
at that stage, instead of concentrating on the preservation of the
building, and leave the decision as to the wisdom of his actions to
the considered judgment of the council or a reviewing court. But
in the worst case, he could show that between the date of the fire
(}~y 26, 1978) and the date of 79-213 (May 22, 1979) he was con-
tinually working, whether wisely or not, with Mound officials and
staff, including the employment of an attorney in repeated attempts
to bring his case to a conclusion.
A reasonable result of Mr. Zuckman's action during this period,
although not appearing on the existing record, would be a con-
clusion that some of the difficulty now being experienced by all
concerned parties is that Mr. Zuckman has not been fully heard in
accordance with the due process requirements of Law; has something
left to say in explanation of justification of his conduct; and
that such statements would enhance, rather than detract from the
record. ~-
In summary, I submit that in order to manage this dispute, and to
thereby avoid additional expense and time of further off-the-record
accusations and counter-accusations, another'formal or informal
proceeding is in order. The purpose of such meeting would be to
isolate those facts, such as the actual percentage of destruction
of the stzucture, based on cost, squaz~ footage, or any other
agreeable standard, either by witnesses or by stipulation, and to
submit such facts, interpretations of facts, and stipulations to~
the council, or its assigns, for decision. In a word, Mr. Elam,
to move this dispute back into the area of Law, and to move it
out of further speculation as to what the facts might be.
Sincergt~__
NORTON 1~. HATLIE ·
NM /sk
CC: Melvin Zuckman
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Mound, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF
)
Melvin Zuckman, ) HENRY TRUELSEN
)
Defendant.
)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
HENRY TRUELSEN, being first duly sworn, states under
oath as follows:
1. Your affiant is the Building Inspector of the City
of Mound.
2. On May 26, 1978, a one-story frame house located a~
5012 Tuxedo Boulevard in the City of Mound was damaged by fire.
Damage was estimated by the fire department at $30,000.
3. In the month of February, 1979, your affiant observed
that the owner of the above mentioned structure, Melvin Zuckman, had
commenced reconstruction 0f the'structure without a permit. At that
time your affiant advised Mr. Zuckman that a variance and a building
permit were necessary prerequisites to reconstruction.
4. On March 23, 1979, Mr. Zuckman filed an Application for
Variance with the City of Mound.
5. On May 22, 1979, by resolution 79-213 (copy attached),
Mr. Zuckman's Application for Variance was denied, the City Council
finding that the structure was non-conforming and had been damaged
to the extent of 50% or more.
6. Since May 22, 1979, to the present time, no further
applications for variance or for a building permit have been made by
Mr. Zuckman.
7. On May 15, 1981, your affiant learned that Mr. Zuckman
had again commenced reconstruction of the dwelling. Your affiant
conducted an inspection of the dwelling on May 18, 1981 and found
that a new roof had been constructed and that workers were on the
roof installing shingles.
8. Since May 18, 1981, your affiant has attempted to
contact Mr. Zuckman but has been unable to do so. Your affiant has
further observed that the reconstruction is continuing on evenings
and weekends.
Further, your affiant sayeth not.
Henry Truelsen
Sworn and subscribed to
before me on this
day of .....
1981.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Mound, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) NOTICE OF MOTION
)
Melvin Zuckman, )
)
Defendant. )
)
TO: MELVIN ZUCKMAN, Defendant, and ERROL K. KANTOR, his attorney:
Please take NOTICE that before a Judge of the above-named
Court at a Special Term thereof at the Government Center in the City
of Minneapolis, on Friday, August 21, 1981, at 9:30 o'clock in the
forenoon, the above-named plaintiff will, at said time or as soon
thereafter as counsel can be heard, move the Court for an order
commanding defendant and all persons acting under him to refrain from
reconstructing any building or structure on that portion of Tract A,
RLS No. 1150, lying within 50 feet of Lake Mtnnetonka and within
10 feet of the side yard lot line until final Judgment herein or
until further order of the Court. Said motion will be made upon the
affidavit of Henry Truelsen, Building Inspector, and Mound City
Council Resolution No. 79-213, attached hereto.
A Temporary Injunction is hereby sought, on the grounds
that if defendant is not restrained from reconstructing a non-
conforming structure, irreparable injury will result to the plaintiff.
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
James D, Larson
Attorneys for the City of Mound
1512 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 338-8911
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF H~NNEFIN
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City' of Mound, )
)
Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
vs. ) AND ORDER FOR TEMPORARY
) INJUNCTION
Melvin Zuckman, )
)
Defendant. )
)
The above matter was heard by the undersigned, a Judge
of the Hennepin County District Court, upon the plaintiff's motion
for a temporary injunction. James D. Larson appeared for the
plaintiff. Errol K. Kantor appeared for the defendant. The Court,
being fully advised in the premises, makes the following Findings
of Fact, Conclusions Of Law and Order for Temporary InJunction~
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 26, 1978, defendant Melvin Zuckman was the'
owner of a single story frame structure at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard in
the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, legally .described as Tract A,
RLS No. 1150.
2. On May 26, said structure was partially destroyed by
fire.
3. On March 23, 1979, defendant applied for a variance
from lake and side yard setback requirements, which application was
denied by resolution of the City Council, No. 79-213, dated May 22,
1979.
4. That defendant has corm~enced reconstruction of said
structure without the required variance and building permit.
5. Defendant intends to complete reconstruction of said
structure unless enjoined therefrom.
6. Plaintiff has no'adequate remedy at law and would
suffer irreparable damage if the erection of said buildin~ were
allowed to continue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
No bond. shall be required of plaintiff. A temporary
injunction shall ~ssue commanding Melvin Zuckman and all'persons
acting under him to refrain from erecting or reconstructing
building or structure upon that portion of Tract A, RLS'No. 1150
'lying Within 50 feet of Lake Minnetonka, or within 10 feet of the
side yard lot line, until final Judgment herein or until further
order of the Court.
Let a writ of te~orary injunction issue accordingly.
By the Court
Dated:
Judge of Distric% Court
STATE OF MINNES
COUNTY OF
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Mound, )
)
Pi ~intiff, )
)
vs. )
)
Melvin Zuckman, )
)
D, ~endant. )
)
WRIT OF INJUNCTION
The State of
served and has
Motion for Tempo~
and all persons
the above named
or structure
within 50 feet o
yard lot line,
to the above named defendant, Melvin Zuckman:
, the above named plaintiff, City of Mound, has
led in the District Court of Hennepin County, a
Injunction, praying that you, Melvin Zuckman,
under you be enjoined during the pendency of
:tion from erecting or reconstructing any building
that portion of Tract A, RLS No. 1150, lying
Minnetonka and within ten feet of the side
W~REA , it appears to the satisfaction of the above
named Court fro~ the said Motion and supporting Affidavit and City
Council resolutl that sufficient grounds exist therefor;
NOW, REFORE, in consideration of the premises and
pursuant to o] of the above named Court, you, Melvin Zuckman, and
each and every ~on acting under you, are strictly commanded that
you and each and person acting under you, do absolutely
refrain and until final Judgment in the ab6~--~ntitled a~tion,
or until further rder of the Court, from erecting or'reconstructing
any structure or building upon that portion of Tract A, RLS No. 1150,
lying within 50 feet of Lake Minnetonka and within ten feet of the
side yard lot line, and this Injunction you will observe under
penalty of the laW.
WITNESS the Honorable , Judge
of the District COurt aforesaid, and the seal of said Court hereto
affixed, at Minneapolis, Minnesota, this day of , 1981.
(Seal of District Court)
Clerk of District Court
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Mound,
Pla
VS.
Melvin zuclman,
Def~
)
)
~tiff, ) ' '
)
) MEMORANDUM OF LAW
)
)
)
)
)
In
City respectfull~
of a Statement
Conclusion.
,rt of its Motion for Temporary Injunction, the
i'submits the following Memorandum of Law, consisting
!Facts, a Statement of the Applicable Law, and a
I.
STATEP[ENT OF FACTS
Defenda~t Melvin Zuckman is the owner of property located
at 5012 Tuxedo B~levard, in the City of Mound, legally described
as Tract A, RLS ~. 1150.
:rty is non-conforming to the City Zoning Code for
The
the following
on one parcel ofi
said structures
2. Bui
the motion
~roperty contains two principal structures (houses)
which is zoned'Residential A-1 (Single Family);
3 housing units in a single family district.
A on said parcel is the structure involved in
Ls further non-conforming because of:
a) ~ minor side yard set back deficiency (1/4 of a
), and
b) t is built 13 feet from the lake front and the
ironing ordinance requires a 50 foot setback.
3. Building B is the other structure on said parcel and has
two setback violations:
a) !ia deck is built 4.5 feet from the neighboring
parcel and the ordinance requires a ten foot setback.
b) ~he structure is 16.7 feet from the street and the
!Ordinance requires 20 feet as a setback.
~fidavtt of Henry Truelsen and Count. il Resolution
i On Me,Il6, 1979, a fire damaged the single floor structure
lying w~thin thh 50 foot lake front setback area. The fire department
es timateild the ~ge at $30,000. In February of 1979, City Building
Inspector Henr~ll~ruelsen became aware that defendant---was recon-
structin~ the f~e-damaged building. Defendant was advised that he
needed bpth a v :lance and a building setback permit to rebuild. On
March 23i, 1979, efendant filed a variance request. On May 22, 1979,
by ResolUtion N~ 79-213, the City Council found from the structural
examinat~on ~f
opinion 9£
by Edwar~ J..
Chester
structure had b
Accor
Mound City c°dei'l~llthe Council denied the variance by Resolution 79-213,
proceeding to r
permit. ' ~
b.
Council to tndi
fire
tained two
lot and did not
to the zoning o~,
the Minnetonka
e. !It
the applicant's
valuations was
City and State
le Swanson, a Professional Engineer, from the
.lk of the County Assessor's office, from the viewing
:e, Eberhardt Company, and from the appraisal of
wiicz, a Civil and Structural Engineer, that the
n damaged to the extent of 50% or more of its value.
ngly, pursuant to Section 23.20, Subd. g, of the
defendant failed td present any evidence to the
te the structure was not 50% or more destroyed by
property was a non-conforming use in that it con-
and three dwelling units on a single family
;gt the setback requirements of the ordinance.
requested lake front setback of 13 f;et was contrary
of the City of Mound and did not conform to
Conservation District requirements.
the findi.ng and determination of the Council that
'oblem and the Council's dilemma in establishing
l~ated bY 'the applicant's failure to comply with
Ms.
defendant created his ow~ hardship by illegally
a structure without Obtaining a bUilding
Notwi
commenced Teton
year. Building
and order a
to be worklcg i
bbserve~ on
were beinglfn~
Chap
with the aid
municipal
of the City.
The'
23 of the City
past errors £~
merit took
canding the denial of the variance, the defendant
of the damaged structure in Mmy of this
~ector Truelsen's efforts to contact the defendant
~=oppage have been unsuccessful. Defendant appears
.y on evenings and weekends. Truelsen
1981, that the roof had been replaced and shingles
led.
STATEMENT OF THE APPLICABLE LAW
~62 of Minnesota Statutes authorizes City Council
LSSistance of City Planning commission to carry out
activities which guide development and improvement
of Mound has adopted a zoning ordinance, Chapter
It is the intent of said ordinance to correct
Latttng, building and land use wherein much develop-
the City prior to the adoption of any planning
regulations or lanning thought and to direct, aid and as-4ist develop-
merit on an eq. ~ basis throughout the community for present and future
conforming u~
sti~utional r~
to prevent the
eompensatfon.
cluding
125.1951C.S.
(1980).
and provides
Subd. "g" of
protect existing property values and to meet con-
.rements protecting the rights of~roperty owners and
aking of lands or property without the payment of
throughout the country have uniformly recdgnized
L~es as a method of protecting said property rights
.~tises on zoning and planning have uniformly agreed
uses may be lost for a variety of reasons,
See 8A Dunnell Dig. (3 ed.) ~25.180, 25.183,
"The Law of Local Government Operations", §26.62
23.20 of the Mound Code of Ordinances relates to
regarding non-conforming uses and Sec. 23.20,
City Code states as follows:
in the
property
(50I) or
could
structure
violative
Mahtomedi
Court hel(
remedy fox
comply wit
[ng which is partially damaged or destroyed
earthquake, wind, water, or expldsion may
ed to its former use, provided that no
does not conform to the requirements
e district in which it is located, and which
damaged or destroyed to the excenc
)ercent (50I) or more, may be rebuilt or
. other than for purposes of conformity.
of the extent of damage or destruction shall
the City Council or its appointed agent."
CONCLUSION
City Council determined, after hearing evidence
separate expert opinions, that the subject
d or destroyed to the extent of fifty percent
non-conforming use was lost and reconstruction---
conformity with the zoning code and setback
th a variance.
'e that defendant's recent efforts to rebuilt the
variance and without a permit are unlawful as
Section 23.20.
has no adequate remedy at law. See City of
.a, 243 NW 2d 31 (1976) where the Minnesota
es were not an adequate, efficient or practical
.pality seeking to require a ~roperty owner to
regulations.)
Respectfully submitted,
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
By _
James D. Larson
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Mound
1512 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 338-8911
WESTONI
SUPERINTENDENT
Dale E. Fisher
MEMO
ASST. SUPT. -
BUDGET & PLANNING '
Donald Brandenbut$ . TO.'
ASST. SUPT.
INSTRUCTION &
PERSONNEL
Erwin F. Stevenson
FROM: D. F~ Bran,
ACCOUNTING
Sandra Schmidt
COMMUNICATIONS
Ann Bcrgman
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Donald Ulrick
FOOD SERVICES
Floron~e Peterson
SUBJ: C(
Per our lh~eting,
services of Jim G:
Green, and ~brahl
attached
plan
in this
buses
will be in
SPECIAL SERVICES
Larry Litman
It also
which I kr
The one cut
entering
require
parking on
Jim
He will
the coun~
city will be
entrance to the eit
~j
OOL DISTRICT 277
} LYNWOOD BOULEVARD
MINNESOTA 55364
PHONE: 472-1600
September 30, 1981
Supt. for Budget & Planning
CUTS
iwith Mayor Lindlan, I did secure the
engineer with the firm of Hammel,
design an off-loading area similar to the
this plan requires two cuts, it is the
enter and exit traffic off and onto 110
riots the traffic to only those cars or
).arena spectators. Most of that traffic
rush hours.
exclude large buses from our parking lot
to you.
lot to 110 and will increase traffic
to day long proportions and would
Small and oftentime congested lot since
be prohibited.' ._
afternoon and picked up a site plan.
and is authorized to work directly with
the curb cuts I understand that the
same time in order to coordinate the
the street.
Curb Cuts, continued
Jim has also been instructe~l
change order to the 110
helpful if the cost could be ret:
I would hope that you would
contribution on the part
and will be responsible for im
assessment considerations
of including this project as a
;apital fund is in deficit it would be
Rock and that there might be some
The district is providing the land
et.. Any help from the city in their
DFB/bd
Ene.
Jim Goulet, Hammil
Rock Lindlan, May~r
~J'6hn Elam, City iM~
Clayton Nolby,
Dave Falk, Site
Ron Roelofs, Sp(
Jim Paradise, Sp0r'
Jerry Kohl, Sports
Bert Larson,
Don Ulriek, Direct,
mson
~ervices
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPM AND
PROPERTYMANAGEMEN BEPAR'
City of Mound
5341 May~ood Roa4
Mound, ~q 55364
Gentlemen'
In accordance wi'
enclose, in dupl:
Y;ou
,cate,
Both copies of tile. agr,
attested by the :i~ty C'.
behalf of Burlin
executed copy wi
Will you also ki ~dlY f~
Northern Railroa
in the agreement
Very truly yours
We
Lease Rep~
Enc.
Room 10i8
176 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 298-2121
September 30, 1981
=ase :
ire :
ise:
.~nt al :
ation: ' Mound, Minnesota
#238,758
October 1, 1981
Chain link fence
$175.00 each 10 yrs,
$100.00 each 10 years
thereafter
:ion, we are pleased to
mentioned agreement.
t be executed by the Mayor,
~rned for execution on
roa~d Company. One fully
you for your record.
made payable to Burlixgton
the rental as specifiedi
th~
~8
($
all
of
o¢ from
a.fo
5. U~n
th, said facility
th~
to
6. The
or any
the
let
above
In of:
MdSCELLANEOU$
No.: 238,758
Case No.:
let day of October, 1981,
ILROAD C0~ANY (formerly BURLTNGTON NORTHEP~ INC. ), a
called the "Railroad," and CITY OF MOUND, a
corporation of the State of Minnesota, whose post
office address is 53~1 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota
5~36~, hereinafter called the "Applicant,"
te comstruct, ~tsin and use a chain link fence
(hereizafter termed the "facility"), upon the right of way of
County, Minnesota
is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit "A,';~the
following terms and conditions: dated July 17, 1981
the sum of One Hundred Seventy-Five .... dollars
hereof, f~r the first ten (10) year period an~ One
each subse.quent te.n ,(1.0.). years.
and maintain the asia xacln~y at the Applicant's sole cost and
satisfactory to the Railroad.
shall imply or import a covenant on the par~ of
does r~ lease and discharge the Railroad of and from ~ny and
of s~ .id facility or any property of the Applicant upon the
with t'. ~e construction, maintenance and use thereof, and the
sume any a~ d all liability for injury to or death of persons or loss
aris:rig from or during the construction, use, maintenance
such injdry, death, loss, damage or destruction aforesaid may
shall an~ hereby does indemnify and save harmless the Railroad
s~ita, actions, d~mages, recoveries, judgments, costs or
connectio~ with any such injury, death, loss, damage or destruction
-!
Otherwise of this agreement the Applicant shall at ths
and to~h~ satisfaction of the Railroad removs the said facility
aa near as may be to their now existing conditioni
icant sha~l flil to remove or cause to be removed from said premises
date of thC cancellation or termination otherwise of this agreement,
facility Or any part thereof to its own use without compensation
same at t~e cost and expense of tbs Applicant.
this agreem.ent or permit any other person or persons to use
of the R~ilread occupied by the said facility without first having
~e Railroad. [
and t~rminate this agreement at any time upon thirty days
intention so to do.
the Railroad to the Applicant hereunder may be effectually given by
or atto/racy deposited postpaid in a United States poet office
Office address above stated.
parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year
BURLINGTON NOHi'HERN RAILROAD COMPANY
By
General Manager - Leases
Attest
Mayor
City Clerk
777
/kmer Ins. Assoc.
A-1 Mtka Rental
/Al bi nson : "'
Blackowiak & Son JiM
Ron Bostrom
Holly Bostrom i
Buff,~lo Bituminous jJ 42,
Curtis 1000 ij
Duam~.s 66 ii~,
Depel~dabl e Services
Doro"hy DeLaney
Wm H~Jdson
SHirley Hawks jj
HeWn Co. Chf Police PTAC Jj
Hard-ives, Inc. JJ 17,
Jone ~ Chemicals jj
Ku St,)m Electronics ji
The I.aker l
MoUn~t Police Dept
Mo~n~! Postmaster
Crai!l Mayer
C.$. McCrossan In¢
MN.lC,). Attorneys Assn
Me~:r~) Fone Communications
Mpls Star & Trib.
Metr~) Clinic of Counsel inc_
Mi~! I:entral Fire Ins.
Natl Fire Protection Assn
Tir'l°':hy L. Piepkorn
Rol:o Rooter
Sc(~t" Racek
Greg Skinner
Nels Schernau
TRAN'.;FERS
Stre~;t to Imp & Equip Outl l,
Park " " "
Finallce " " ,m
E1 ec" ions" " "
Dise~lsed Tree" "
SeNe - ,, ,, ,,
Watel' " " "
Ce~e':ery" " "
Waco~ia Ridgeview Hosp
West)nka Sanitation
Zieg er, Inc.
R.L Youngdahi ~ Assoc
Grig s, Cooper
Joh .on Bros. Liquor
Old )eoria
Ed ~illips & Sons
TOT/~ B ILLS
Stl ~et to Shop & Stores
Sev ~r " " "
War ~-r Il II Ii
Par (s II II II
Po! ce " '~ "
Li~ ior to General
28.50
100.00
70.33
14.00
575.92
208.93
,146.35
,432.51
68,551.62
189. '
2.00
98.94
29.53
749.19
1,50O.OO
)JECT:
Off. Gary C~
Chief Bruce
Letter of C¢
Saturday, September
residents, Mr. & M
~ir appreciation to
:ter of commendation
~]ust. want to add my
ill ~e~cy ca 11. one of th
!lll~°~ice department is b
IIl~h~s sort from the col
lill~ice does an effecti
J. Elam
~er 1 , 1981
to a re call at 2156 Noble Lane.,
time :o write a letter expressing
I ~ve attached a copy of'the
your ;peedy response to an emer-
is the effectiveness of its
to ul'gent calls. Letters of
ces my feelings that the Mound
urs,
)ruce
lice
Wold
>artment
Off. iScott Ra
Chief Bruce
Letter of
.aturday, September
residents, Mr. & Mr
r appreciation to y
er to this commendal
st want to add my pt
call. One of th,
=e department is by
sort from the comm~
does an effectiv(
again.
'e call at 2156 Noble Lane'
~ write a letter expressing
'e attached a copy of the
eedy response to an emer-
s the effectiveness of its
ent calls. Letters of
eelings that the Mound
Wold
~artment
J. Elam
CITY of N, IOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, M~NNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Downtown Advisory Committee
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
October 1, 1981
Next DAC Meeting
Just a quick reminder that our next meeting is scheduled for
Monday, October 5th at 12:00 Noon at Branty's. We have a full
agenda, and expect to meet from 12:00 to 2:00 P.M. Hope to
see you there for a timely start on the many items at hand.
Chelseth
Minutes - Special Meeting at l0 a.m. September 28th, 1981 at Branty's
Downtown Advisory Committee to the Mound City Council
Present: Paul Pond, Georgiann Daly, John Royer, Frank Weiland,
Donna Quigley, and Ron Norstrem
A1 so: Diane Arneson, Secretary
The special meetin§ was called due tO concerns regarding the downtown
lighting. ' ....
As it turns out, the bis specs for the lights did require a square
c~esign because a certain model number'was~.used. As a result, the
contractor will supply that light for the-contract bid price.
However, N.S.P.(according to the city engineer) will not warehouse
or stock the ballasts and refractor' replacement pieces. Therefore, if
the committee still recommends the square light, the City of Mound may
be required to keep an inventory~of parts on hand for.servicing by
N.S.P.
The Luminaire model (not preferred by the committee) would be totally
stocked and maintained by N.S.P.and Hennepin County.
Pond moved and Weiland seconded autheri.zation for Ron Norstrem to
contact Jim Regan of N.S~P. 'to inquire whether indeed N.S.P. will
stock parts for .specified model or"~not..and whether said model is
available in a medium bronze finish. Pending those answers, Ron
Norstrem will discuess the inYentory and parts~.request with City ~'
Manager Jon Elam. Motion carried.
Ron Norstrem personally opposes placement of a light pole as planned
at the intersection of County Rds. 15 and llO- northeast corner
near MN Federal. o- ~
After discussion Pond moved and Norstrem seconded a suggestion that
the committee's final plan .recommend pedestrian seating area of
some type around the light pole at the corner of Cty. Rds. 15 and llO,
on the northeast corner near MN Federal, as'~introduced by Donna Quigley.
Motion carried. '~
Meeting was adjourned at 1E):45 a.m. Pond reminded members of a
two hour meeting next Monday, October 5th.
Diane Arneson, Secretary
A.THOMAS WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD
~IAMI~S D. LARSON
LAW OFFICES
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
October 1, 1981
TELEPHONE
~61~) 338-8911
Mr. E. L. Sonnenburg
Senior Claims Representative
Aetna Casualty and Surety Division
110 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Bohnhoff vs. City of Mound
Dear Mr. Sonnenburg:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of October 1, 1981~ ~
regarding the above claim. On September 8, 1981 you addressed'a
letter to Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager, indicating that the Aetna
declined coverage foK the claim of Steven R. Bohnhoff for the
damage to his boathouse for two reasons; i.e., late notice of loss
and the definition of an occurrence.
Subsequent to the receipt of your letter, the City Council and the
City Manager have asked me to review the insurance policy and the
facts to ascertain the City's rights. I have been advised by Mr.
Jon Elam, City Manager, that in the summer of 1978 the Bohnhoffs
called the City to report a hole in an area near their home. The
Director of Public Works of the City looked at it, but he has left
the City and we are not sure what, if anything, he discovered.
Another City employee at that time filled the hole at the suggestion
of the Director of Public Works and seeded it.
The next saga appears in 1979 when apparently the hole reappeared.
The City did not know that there was a pipe underground at that point
since the installation had been done many years previously and by whom
we are not sure. We speculate that the Village of Island Park, which
has not been in existence for 20 years, may have put the pipe in that
area. In 1979 a sewer line broke across from this area and that was
repaired by the City. Apparently after each rain the hole would re-
appear and would get worse. As I indicated to you on the phone, we
did not know at that time whether there was an underground cavity
of some sort or whether an animal had dug a hole which was collapsing
after a rain or just what the season might be.
WURST, CARROLL ~,, PEARSON
Mr. E. L. Sonnenburg
Page 2
October 1, 1981
In 1980 the problem was again called to the City's attention by the
Bohnhoffs. There is nothing in the City file which is referred to
me which indicated at that time that the allege~ hole or leak was
connected to a boathouse damage. In October of 1980 Widmer Construc-
tion Company was hired to dig up this hole. They found the pipe and
a rolled gasket in the pipe which allowed water to leak out of the
pipe when pressure was increased. It was apparently something very
easy to fix once it was discovered.
I am not advised as to when the Bohnh°ffs first made claim that their
boathouse suffered any damage as a result of this leaky pipe.
We are also advised that during the period from 1978 through 1980 the
Bohnhoffs did major remodeling on their home and that evidence could
be gathered which would indicate that heavy equipment such as bob-
cats or tractors were driven over where the pipe was located. We are
therefore not sure as to whether this would or would not cause the
leak in the pipe.
I have expressed to you that after reviewing your insurance Policy
which has been transmitted to me by the City and is policy number
37XS 3156 covering a policy period from 1/1/79 to 1/1/80 and there
may be both earlier and later policies which would have been in force,
that based upon said examination I think there is a reasonable dis-
agreement as to the claims made in your letter of September 8, 1981.
I do not believe that the City can be charged with late notice of a
loss when we did not realize that a loss took place or was taking
place. It is my further contention that neither you or any other
reasonable person or reasonable insurance company would expect a policy
holder to call up and indicate that a potential claim was in existence
because a hole was discovered in the ground.
The actual notice to the City would not occur until the Bohnhoffs made
claim against the City alleging that their property had been damaged
as a result of this leaky pipe. Further, we can not assume that the
City was negligent for having a pipe under the ground which developed
a leak for reasons unknown. It is surely as easy to speculate that
the damage to the pipe came about as a result of heavy equipment
operated by the claimant over the area where the pipe was located.
I therefore do not agree with your contention that the City is guilty
of failing to notify the Aetna of this claim.
The second reference made in your letter declining coverage relates
o the definition of occurrence which is found in section 5.9 of
our policy. The definition in the policy is as follows:
WURST. CARROLL & PEARSON
Mr. E. L. Sonnenburg
Page 3
October 1, 1981
"Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or
~e~eated exposure to conditions which result in personal
in3ury, property damage or advertising offense which is
neither.expected nor intended from the sfandpoint of the
insured.''
It would appear to me that the case here is directly covered by the
definition of an occurrence, the occurrence being the continuous or
repeated rain or leaking of water which the claimant alleges to have
caused their damages.
It appears to me that the only advice that I can give the City is to
tell the claimant, i.e. the Bohnhoffs, that we are unable to settle
their claim and that they will have to sue the City and to be put to
their proof. The City will then have to commence, a third party
action against the Aetna, placing us in a position of defending a
claim for which you may be ultimately found responsible. I submit
that it would be better and more logical for the Aetna to defend this
claim under a reservation of rights agreement. If it is then deter-
mined that the City of Mound was negligent and that damages are owed
to the Bohnhoffs, the dispute would be centered between the Aetna and
the City of Mound. At that time we could either try to compromise
our differences or litigate the insurance question.
I therefore request that you reconsider the position taken in your
letter of September 8, 1981 that the Aetna Casualty and Surety
Company investigate and defend this claim under a reservation of
rights agreement and if the City of Mound is found negligent, we then
address the question as to whether the City is responsible for the
payment of those damages or as to whether they are covered by the
insurance contract.
I would very much appreciate your early response so that we will know
how to advise the City Manager, the City Council and the Bohnhoffs.
Ver~>. truly Y0U~;~
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
City of Mound
CAP:ms
cc: Mr. Jon Elam
e, ll L, ,'~:l ~ uNIrjlh,
INNEHAHA CREEK
L~KE MINNETONK~
WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O, ~ox 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
BOARD OF MANAGERS:
David H. C~hran. Pre~. · Albe~ L Lehman · J~mes S. Russell · John E. Thomas · B~ra Oudmund~n
September 25, 1981
Mr. James E. Ault, P.E.
Hydraulics Engineer
Department of Transportation
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Re:
Permit Application No. 81-98: Hennepin Co. D.O.T.
L_ oFation: Spring Park Bay-Bla~K~ake Channelt Sprinq P~rk
Purpose: cba~ i25 Dridqe replacement
Dear Mr. Ault:
At its meeting on September 17, 1981 the Board of Managers of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District reviewed the subject permit
application along with the recommendation of the Engineer.
It approved the permit application as submitted with the
following condition:
All potential erosion areas not indicated on' the plan will be
controlled as required to prevent erosion and maintained
until construction is complete and the slopes are stabilized.
Approval is granted under Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule
K.
Permits are valid for one year.
Sincerely,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
Engineers for the District
E. A. Hickok, P.E.
cc:
Board
G. Macomber
,ty of Spring Park
.ty of Mound'
F. Mixa, LMCD
US Army Corps
of Engineers
St. Paul District
Public
Notice
Applicant:
Hennepin County
Depar tme~r~t of~Transpor ration
In Re,Iv Refer to:
81-693-12
Date: 18 September lg81
Exp. Date: 19 October 1981
Section:
404
1. Hennepin County Department of Transportation proposes to place fill material
in the c~%mn~l between Black Lake and Sprin~ Park Baby on Lake Minnetonka during
the replEcement of Bridge 90629 on County State Aid Highway 125. The existing
bridge is a 27-foot long, one-span steel beam structure on vertical concrete
abutments. The proposed bridge would be a 93-foot long, three-span steel beam
structure with pile bent piers and abutments. The end slopes would be protected
with riprap and retaining walls would be constructed at the four corners of the
bridge. In addition, along the west side of the roadway a berm would be pro-
vided for pedestrian traffic and a fishing spot. The proposed bridge would pro-
vide a safer crossing and improve the sight restrictions at the existing bridge.
2. The above proposal requires an individual Department of the Army permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, our public interest review will
consider the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40
CFR 230).
3. The attached drawings'and i~formation below were submitted by the applicant
and form the basis of our preliminary evaluation. ~
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
PHONE NUMBER:
(612) 935-3381
AGENT:
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
Minnesota.
Mr. James Ault
Hydraulics'Engineer
NE~ of sec.
NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF JURISDICTIO!
area of approximately 14,300 acres and
Minnehaha Creek.
QUANTITY AND TYPE OF FILL: It is e
and grouted riprap would be placed to si
SOURCE OF FILL MATERIAL: Construct:
by the contractor.
~, T. 117 N., R. 23 W., Hennepin County,
IAL WATER: Lake Minnetonka has a surface
2s connected to the Mississippi River by
~t~mated that 615 cUbic yards of random
abilize the new slopes.
on material would be from sources selected
QUANTITY AND TYPE OF MATERIAL TO BE
cubic yards of material would be excavat
bridge and abutments.
DREDGED OR EXCAVATED: Approximately 1,500
.ed during the removal of the existing
NCSC0-RF (81-693-12)
Notice of Application for Permit
SURROUNDING LAND USES: The areaii~ t
CONSTRUCTION ECfPECTED TO BEGIN: !SprJ
COMPLETION DATE: Fall 1982.
THE APPLICANT INDICATED THE FOLLOWIN6
APPLIED FOR: Minnesota Department of Nat
shed District.
THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT
THE APPLICANT: The contractor woulduse
drains, fiber mats, mulching and seeding.
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED WILDLIFE OR
threatened or endangered species arekno%
This application is being coordinated wit
and the National)Iarine Fisheries Ser~ic~
endangered or threatened wildlife or plat
considered in our final assessment of the
NO ALTERNATIVES to the project aS pro
However, through the public interest revi
ident~ify and evaluate possible alternativ
4. This Public Notice has been sent to t
and is considered by the District Enginee
that agency for water quality certificati
Agency has indicated that it intendsito z
appropriate action under Section 401'of t
tire to the Pollution Control Agency act1
PeI
Di~
193
Ros
18 September 1981
5. We have determined that a Federal Env
r~marily residential.
x 82.
STATE AND/OR LOCAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN
~ral Resources, Minnehaha Creek Water-
~ATER QUALITY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY
)ollution control methods such as slope
'LANTS OR THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT: No
u to use this area.
h the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Any comments they may have regarding
ts or their critical habitat will be-
described work.
)osed were identified by the applicant.'
~w the corps of Engineers will try to
ms to the project. ~
~eMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
r to constitute valid notification to
on. The Minnesota Pollution Control
eView this project to determine the
he Clean Water Act. Any comments rela-
~ns may be sent to:
aesota Pollution Control Agency
mits Section
~sion of Water Quality
West County Road B-2
ville, Minnesota 55113
[ronmental Impact Statement will not
be prepared. 'This determination may'be r~versed, if warranted, as a result of
any new information provided by Federal, State, and local agencies, comments
from the public, or any new information w~ich becomes available. Our preliminary
review was based principally on informatt)n provided by the applicant, and a
preliminary environmental assessment has been made. A final environmental
assessment will be prepared using commentls received and information which becomes
available during the public interest review.
6. .This public notice is being sent to the. National Park Service, theState
Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine 'if
there are known cultural resourcMs whi6h may be affected by the described work.
7?/
NCSC0-RF (8]-693-12)
Notice of Application for Permit
Presently unknown archaeological, sci
or destroyed by the work described it
latest version of the National Regis
and no listed properties (known to b
the Register) are located in the pro~
18 September 1981
)r historical data may be lost
application, However, the
Historic Places has been consulted
ible for inclusion, or included in
7. Interested parties are invited t
ments, or objections within 30 days
should bear upon the suitability of
and should, if appropriate, suggest
ments received may b~ forwarded to t~
to this office written facts, argu-
date of this notice. These statements
ion and the adequacy of the project
~anges believed to be desirable. Com-
,licant.
8. Any person may request, in
Corps of Engineers hold a public
for the Corps to hold a hearing
should be held. A request may be
hearing are not provided.
9. The decision whether to issue a
the probable impact of the described
will reflect the national concern for
ithin the comment periOd, that the
o consider this application. Requests
e, in detail, the reasons why a hearing
f substantive reasons for holding a
will be based on an evaluation of
the public interest. That decision
protection and use of important re-
sources, The benefits which reasonably be expected to accrue from the work
must be balanced against its reasonably, fo eseeable .detriments. Ail factors
which, may be relevant to the work will Me Donsidered; among those are conserva-
tion, economics, aesthetics, general ~n~ir~nmental concerns, historic values,
fish and wildlife values, flood damag~ ~reyention, land use, navigation, recrea-
tion, water supply, water quality, energy Deeds, safety, food production and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the Pgop~e. No permit will be granted unless
its issuance is found to be in the public ~nterest. All environmental documents,
including any final environmental asseS~meDt, will be available for review 45
days after the date of this notice. An~on~' wishing to review these documents may
contact the District Engineer at the ~d~re~s below.
10. Ail replies should be addressed D~strict Engineer, St. Paul District,
Corps of Engineers, 1135 U,S. Post Custom House, St. Paul, Minnesota
55101, ATTENTION: Regulatory ~anCh.
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
2 Incl
GOETZ ~
i, C;ons truction-Operations
3
r23w
WEST ARM
LAKE MINNETQ NKA L
i~ I ~ ]Iai I~~
VICINITY
PURPOSE: REPLACE DEFICIENT BRIDGE
DATUM: M.S.L. ADJ. 1929
PROJECT AREA
EXISTING BRIDGE N0. i90619
PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27609
IN CITIES OF' MOUND AND
SPRING PARK
AT LAKE MINNETONKA
COUNTY OF:HENNEPIN STATE: MINN
APPLICATION BY:HENNEPIN COUNTY
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
SHEET I OF Z
DATE; 8--13-81.
"TftERE IS A GRO~IIIVG
Oct 1st 1981
Mr. Jim Lassek,
2431, Wil shire
Mound, Mnn.
Landscape
iN EVEBY TBEE WE PLANT"
KlM .~Ai SIA
421
,",o,0'~ Office 427-3977
8umme ill 27- 964
In tm nt
11 518 Zea St.
Coon Rapids, Mn 55433
Experienced. Qualified, Recognized
and Recreational Development
your residence.
Home
Sir,
Our bid according to
Tax is included in the
All work shown consi
We are committed to exce
and we are looking
immediatelY, Fence work to
'with balance $3,000.00.
~e plan is $ 3,100.00
.ANTING
~0D CHIP MULCH
all our undertakings
you. We can commence work
home owner- Subtract $100.00 -
Yours very trulyb
K~ Sai Sia
KSS/ras
KlM SAI:
Investment
Associates, Inc.
11518 Zea St.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
Experienced. Qualified. Recognized
Landscaping and ReCreational Development
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES INC.
'
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~z LAND SURVEYORS L PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
OctoOer 1, 1~81
Mr. Jori Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject: City of Mound
t',~i~e_~t Improvements - Section 1
AY'~ent Request
File #5248
Dear Mr. Elam:
Enclosed i~ the~~yment request in the amount
~~~h'e~above project. This project
was ~~y'
c~~'ontractor on August l, 1981, which was the completion date on
the contract. The only work that remained after that date were a few clean up
items. For this reason, we feel that no l~qu&dated damages should be charged
to the Contractor.
If you need any further information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
MoCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3C:sj
Enclosure
Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria- Eagan
C
0
(d I
o
(l.) C:
c ¢=
0
- f.-.i
o
,--4
· 0
0 ~
Z r--
I-..-
4~ 0
0 0
r- tO
,-4
~ ,"-
X
0~ 0:) ED
IIII ~01 I I~11 I
oo0o ~0 0 0 O0 0
IIII ~1 I I II I
0000
0
009 0 0
I I I I I I I I
G
o
0
r-
! I
04'-.1'
O0
Wt.d
O0
I I I 0 I I I O0
Ill~lll~
II1~111
III
000000
Z
i, I i,.--
O0
620
'1"
o
IIIIIII
0000000
IIIIIII
OOOLOOOOO
Illllllll
IIIIIIIII
000000000
.-~- .... -[- -t- -r'
_J bJ ~J_J .J~r) LO bJ W
~-I ,--4 ,--t ,.-t i.~
0--4
o° ~oo ooo oooo
O0 ~ O0000
II II III IIII
oo oo ooo oooo
I I I I I I I
O0 000 0 0
I I I I I I I
O0 000 0 0
I I I I I
I I I I
0
0
0
0
,-4
i-.4
I-4
I
'0
0000
0000 0000
O0
O0
IIII IIII II II1~ IIII
0000 0000 iO O0 I 0000
IIII IIII I IIv IIII
0000 O000i
0000 0000,~
0000
0000
0
ll'I
I I I I
I I I I
',0,'-4
LLJ ~ 0
'1- .~ (._)
0 ~ 'C)','~-~ 0
0
0
C
0
(_3
0
Ob'~O
I00 I I00 I I
OOC) O 00000
· I I
I O,--t I I 0 I I I ~
0,--~ 0
I I I I I
! I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 0,-t I I 0,-~ I I I'r~{'~
0,-~ 0 0,~ 00 L~O,I
I I I I I
0000
0000
0 r~ L~ 0
IJJ W W LO 0 -JbJ
00000 u'~O
u'~O 00 c,,I
I ! I
I I I
I I I
0C30
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
000 ,,'--J
I I I
I I I
(DOC.:)
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
000
I I I
000
C" 013_
b~
Z
Z
C
.,.-t
4-~
(D
I
C
(D
O
~D u% ,-4
,-4 ~ ,-4
Z Z Z
C C ~- ~
ii
,-'4 04
..... McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES,
INC.
October 2, 1981
Reply /o:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: ~et Improvements
~'.~i~.~._t. ~ ~. a ym e n t Request
~~--2T 3
Dear Mr. Elam:
Enclosed is the~_'Pa~.~ ~Request for the above
project in the amount of~C~3~The!'~'~ work on this
project is now completed ~~ with the plans and
specifications, and the punch liSt is all complete.
We, therefore, recommend payment in this amount and
this project be finaled out.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
William H. McCombs, P.E.
WHM:lar
Enclosure
Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Eagan
0
E~
0
=1
0
0 ...
0 C~
0
0
0
0
>;
d d
0
I.n 0
0
0
0
..¢
0
~ ,m~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
u~ '~ OD 0 F'- ~ 0 MD 6'4
0 u~ 0 0 0 0
~ 0 ~ ,--11
,--I 0 O4
0
I
0 0 0
0 0 0
r'-I 0 0
0 ~
o Ei
0 ..4
OS -,-4 -,-I
0 0 ~
0 0
o
6
o ~3'
o c,~
o'~ o
,-4 o3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 CD
0 CD ,--'1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 CD
0 0 0 0 0
>
0 u'% 0
CO
0 0 0
0
0
u~
> 0
~ U
0 0 kO ~ ~
~ 0 ~
0 0 U% ~ 0
v v
CZ)
0
0
0
CZ)
0
0
0 0 0
~ m X
0 -~ ~
~ >, 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CO 0 ,-~ CD 0 0
CD
H
CD
CD
CD
0
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
o
CD
0
ooc~
~o~o ~
00000 0
00000 0
~0~
UUUUU U
0
~0
O~
U
~0
!
0
0 0 u~ 0 0 {~
0 u~ ~0 O0 LN 1~
0 0 LN 0 0 1~
0 L.Q kO CO L~ ~
0
.H
0
(D
0
>
0
~ 0
0 0
o o o
o o
o
~0 0 ~1 ~ 0
~ I.~ ~,D
r-~
o o o
0 o ~
~ H
o o o
o o
0
0 W
"~ 0
~ 0 ~:
~ 0
~Q
~ H
rn O
0
oo §~ooo~o~ooo~ooo°o
0
Z
(,2
0
~ CO
1979 STRE[
,UND
iVEMENTS
Payment
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
$131,802.62
276,081.16
435,069.68
316,270.62
244,841.86
251,912.88
13,767.57
91,621.52
54,744.76
54,678.20
155,398.18
161,547.00
30,743.55
29,693.28
16,085.30
10 , 394.03
91,525.45
$2,366 , 177.66
98707
8769
8842
8899
9021
9088
9160
9304
9574
9646
9748
9862
10518
10617
10780
8212
8220
PAID TO
7/17/79
8/14/79
9/11/79
10/09/79
11/13/79
12/11/79
1/14/80
2/25/80
(1/2 of retainage)
5/20/80
6/17/80
7/16/80
8/12/80
9/16/80
10/14/80
ii/i2/8o
2/24/81
3/oi/8i
(retainage reduction
DATE