1984-01-07CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGE'N DA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL DISCUSSION MEETING
9:00 A.M. SATURDAY, JANUARY 7, 1984
A Review of the State of the City
(Begin by Reviewing Enclosed Newspaper Article)
Tonka Building Re-Use
Review Recent Memo's
Letters from City Planner & Assessor
Future Plans
Update on Town Square and Lost Lake Projects
Public Works Building
Where Do We Go From Here?
Enclosed Memo's - Bonestroo Associates, Inc.
- Miller-Schroeder
- City Attorney
Enclosed is Pertinent Bond Information
Review of County Road 15 Design Proposal
Plus Alternatives
Letter Regarding Herb Peck's Request to Vacate Lake Shore
Other Business From The Council
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
DArE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
JANUARY 5, 1984
CITY COUNCIL
JON ELAM
ENCLOSED COMMENTARY FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL
If one substituted the word "city" in place of "firm"
through out this article it would, I think, effectively
portray the challenges we face in managing the City of
Mound in the future.
I thought it might be a good place to take off from in
our Saturday work session.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30. 1983:
~:-,::, ;~ ....... - ," · ·
' ' ' Room in
~ ~,' ~U~ ad h~l~. Yet ~: ~t ~
~w ~v~ ~y bye ever ma~ a ~-~ pla~
~' o~n. ~d ~ 'not
~e m~ ~t ~a~ment ~ ~ ' h ~e U.S. it ~ ~ble
m~ ~ md~ to ~pwve, ~e.q~- ~ble ~1~ e~)
~.of ~e h~ ~ ~d ~y ~n ~er
~ pm~ '~d ~~ ~. ,
~a~levd:~al~e' hM~b~g
· e ~d-~. ~ we t~d~ ~ ~e m-' out ~ ~e ~em~t
' ~ve'~. we ~ have W b~d c~- ~m~'~ have
~er ~ ove~ pmmo~on ~ ~e ~ple ~'t "b~t our';
~ ~d ~
fl~ ~d ~e ~ ~ve ~ even mo~ ~ of a new J~, of
p~on-~ ~ ~ ~n b~. merit ~d ~ n~ ~lam.
~i~y ~ ~ 1~ d~, ~e ~g nw~ ~m~y ~bl~
~ or ~m~ who ~lv~ ~e p~ t i o
~ t~ntk pon~~,.~
~-~e ~g wom~ who m~e ~- pm~on~ ~d
~t ~ p~nt m ,~e ~ or ~e ~cmg ~ ~at It
Fo~-~ly ~: '~d w~t ~ ~n~'~d ~e'
'~at ~ I do Wm~e aej~'b~r. - ~r. it~
mo~ ~~. mo~ ~e~. ~ Uon n~ ~en~E
~a~?" ~d we ~'have W le~ l~r ~c ~ say; "~'
mon~ ~d ~m~ o~er me~. ~ W W ~: "We pl~ to ~ble
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
TO: Jon Elam, City Manager
FRDM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: January 4, 1984
SUBJ: Tonka Buildings
In response to your memorandum of December 28, 1983, I would like to offer
scme ~eneral continents and then specifically focus on the Balboa proposal's
ccmpatibility with the existin~ ordinance.
My initial reaction, to the proposal was negative because i have serious
reservations about both the use itself and, more importantly, about the
duration of the 412,000 square feet of mini-storage in the Tonka building.
This concern st~s frc~ a belief that such a use is not in the best long-term
interest of the City of Mound since it is neither a major tax revenue producer
nor will it generate mars; new jobs. All concerr~ about the City's long-term
best interests must be balanced against the owner's right to reasonably use
his or her property.
After thinking about the proposal, my initial reaction has softened. The
short-term use of Tonka as mini-storage may be acceptable if it helps attain a
more intensive long-term usage. Long-term use of Tonka as mini-storage
remains, in my opinion, unacceptable. In all likelihood, ecor~omics will
preclude long-term use of the structure for storage.
At this point, further ca~ents on the details of the proposal are premature.
If the proposal proves to have merit and the building is used on an interim
basis as a mini-storage facility, it should be done under the conditions of a
binding agreement and time schedule and as part of a comprehensive
redevelopment plan for the usage of the Tonka structure.
The Tonka site is presently zoned' I-1. Under the provisions of the zoning
ordinance, warehousing is a permitted use and assembly/storage of
transportation equipment is listed as a conditional use. The ~alboa proposal
calls for the storage .of boats and recreational vehicles and containerized
storage of other materials. The containerized storage appears to be permitted
under I-l, and the boat storage falls under the conditional use provisions.
Jon Elam
Page Two
January 4, 1984
The existing zoning ordinance is ambiguous re(3arding permitted and conditional
uses in the I-1 district. In the near future, the Planning C(~mission should
consider further delineation of uses within the zone. Regarding the Balboa
proposal, however, it seems appropriate to process the application as a
conditional use. If approved as a conditional use, a written conditional use
permit could be drafted clearly defining time schedules, conditions and other
restrictions. Staff should be able to reccn~nend conditioru~ upon receipt of a
formal proposal and additional background information on Balboa Construction.
A.THOMAS WURST, P.A.
CURTIS A. PEARSON,
JOSEPH E. HAMILTON, P.A.
JANES D. LARSON, ~.A.
THOMAS F: UNDE~WOOD~ ~A.
~OGER ~. ~ELLOWS
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON~ HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
January 5, 1984
TELEI~HONE
(612) $38- 4200
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Tonka Corporation BUildings'
Dear Jon:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 28, 1983.
I have reviewed your 'letter of December 28 to the City Council along
with the background information and your letter of January 3, 1984,
and you and I have discussed this by telephone. I have also dis-
cussed the proposals with Mark Koegler, the City Planner.
It is my understanding that you would like to have me check the
industrial zoning classification which is Section 23.640 of the
city code and explain how their proposal fits into the industrial per-
mitted use or conditional use section. You further wanted to know
if the ordinance should be strengthened and whether conditions should
be established for approval.
There is nothing in any section of our ordinance which relates
directly to storage of boats or recreational vehicles. Mark and I
agree that the planning commission should, for the long term, review
all of the commercial and industrial uses, making comparisons with
other ordinances from other cities. Our ordinance is very bare bones
in this respect.
Under Section 23.640.3 conditional uses do consist of assembly or
storage of a number of products, including transportation equipment.
One could reasonably argue that a boat or a recreational vehicle
would be transportation equipment and that therefore it is authorized
by the ordinance as a conditional use.
As a conditional use, the City can draw up reasonable conditions to'
apply to the conditional use permit. I suggest that you and the
City planning department consider Section 23.505 which is covered on
pages 25 through 30 of our zoning code. There are a number of big
checkpoints which we should be considering in preparing the conditional
use permit.
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
Mr. Jon Elam
Page 2
January 5, 1984
You and I have further discussed this and it is my understanding
that the Balboa Construction Company.wants'to enter into a develop-
ment contract with the City. I certainly do not see any reason why
the City can not negotiate the proper conditions and enter into
such a contract.
I would stress that in the development of the conditional use permit
and any development contract, a great deal of thought go into the
conditions since this particular piece of property has such a pre-
dominant effect on the whole City. If you have'any other questiOns
or comments concerning the use or anything contained in this opinion,
please feel free to contact me.
Very truly y~rs/~
City Attorney
CAP:ms
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
January 4, 1984
Mr. Jon Elam
Mound City Manager
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Jon:
Re: Tonka Properties
The property referred to in your letter dated December 28, 1983,
has a court petition pending. With this petition on file and a
court date set, we would rather not respond to some of your
questions at this time.
We will be contacting the petitioner's attorney regarding the
possible'purchase by Bilboa Construction Co., Inc. The 1982 and
1983 values are the same at $3,349,500. At this time we do not
intend to change the value for the 1984 assessment.
Whatever. the outcome is in regards to the petition, the rate for
taxes runs 4.37% of value.
Sincerely,
Milton Hilk
Principal Appraiser
MH:jb
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
TOWN SQUARE FROJE~T AREA
FROFER~Y
cuR~ USE
e
10.
13.
14.
~5.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
'22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Medical Properties, Inc.
Eugene Bickmann
Thomas L. Giesen/Paul E.
Busche
City of Mound
M, E, Mueller
Mound Builders (Johnson)
State Land Dept,
Broich Agency
Broich Agency
City of Mound
City of Mound
~i N, Johnson
Medical Properties
Medical Properties
M, E. Mueller.
M, E, Mueller
Geo. Shepherd/John R,
Morrison
Geo, Shepherd
Great Northern RR/Conco
Parking Lot
Garage
House
Parking Lot
Tom Thumb
Vacant
Vacant
Super Valu
Parking Lot
Alley
LYNWOOD BLVD'
2O
Anderson Building
Bakery
Mound Clinic
Alley
Mueller Pharmacy
Alley
Laundromat
Vacant
Coast-to-Coast
PARK
OF
LOT ~Z
-% · '~-' .CHURCH RD q,
;HURCH RD
Town Square
· ..Mound, MN o.1 ~o
O'
-0
. Lynwood
Blvd
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
Water
Storm Sewer
Manhole or Catch
Basin
TOk'.N. ~-QDARE PROJECT AREA
(10)
(21')
(22)
(~)
(24)
(25)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(26)
13-117-24-32-0161
MEDICAL PROPERTIES, INC.
13-117-24 33 0027
EUGENE BICKMANN
13-117-24 32 0125
THOMAS GIESEN/PAUL BUSCHE
13-117-24 43 0129
CITY OF MOUND
13-117-24 33 0001
M. E. MUELLER
13-117-24 33.0058
MEDICAL PROPERTIES, INC.
13-117-24 33 0059
MEDICAL PROPERTIES, INC.
13-117-24 33 0060
M. E. MUELLER
13-117-24 33 0061
M. E. MUELf.FR
13-117-24 33 0062
GEO.' SHEPHERD/JOHN MORRISON
13-117-24 33 0063
GEO. SHEPHERD
13-117-24 33 0041
STATE LAND DEPT.
13-117-24 33 0042
BROICH AGENCY/SUPER VALU
13-117-24 33 0043
BROICH AGENCY
13-117-24 33 0044
CITY OF MOUND
13-117-24 33 0045
CITY OF MOUND
13-117-24 33 0046
WILL N. JOHNSON
13-117-24 33 0064
WILL N. JOHNSON (BLDG.)
GREAT NORTHERN R.R. (LAND)
1983 ASSESSOR ' S
TAX MARKET VALUE
1276.14
LAND
2O700
3635.24 62400 24200
849.15 19000 26200
.00 0 0
3888.94 11600 80800
8179.78 13800 176700
APPRAISED
VALUE
63000
125000
52000
825OO
95000
285000
ASSESSED
8901
35738
8324
38232
80415
61.22 1400 0 2300 602
115000
1993.70 6500 42500
19600
34.98 800 0 1100 344
1688.52 5600 35900
48OOO
16600-
101.71 2500 0 5000 1000
.00 0 0 5100 0
94 96 . 35 26400 194200
245000
45000
1360.28 31100 0
93358
13373
.00 0 0 1100 ,0
100000
.00 0 0
2371 . 17 6400 51300
1513.37 34600 (R.R.)
50000
165000
23311
14878
36450.55 242800 631800 1485100 354676
VALUE OF T~ EXEMPT PROPERTIES':
VALUE OF R.R. PROPERTY:
TOTAL
$185,700
130,000
1,193,300
DIFFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSESSOR'S VALUES & APPRAISAL REPORT - $291,800
$~. P,~/, ,,f,f~..,,~
pl,.,~. 6f.2.656J/600
January 4, 1984
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, Mn. 55364
Attn: Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
Re: Preliminary Cost Breakdown
Estimated Construction Payments
Proposed Public Works Building
City of Mound, Minnesota
File No.~21402
O~lo G. ~onestroo. P.~.
Robert W. Ro~ene, P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Bradford A. Lemb~rg,
Richard E. Turner, P.E.
James C. Olson, P.E.
Glenn R. Cook, P.E.
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes. P.E.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht.
Marvin L. $orrala, P.E.
Donald C. 8urgardt, P.E.
Jerry ,4. Bourdon, P,E,
Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Michael T. Rautmann,
Robert R. Pfc#erie, P.E.
Charles A. £rickson
Leo M. pawelsky
Harlan M. Olson
Dear Jon,
Following is our est±mated breakdown and payout schedule during construction
of ~he proposed public works building. This is as discussed at our meeting of
Wednesday, January 4, 1984.
The estimates are based on the report mean cost estimates and on a normal con-
struction period commencing in mid April or early May. We have also, for this
letter, assumed Alternate No. II. If no work is to be done on retrofit of the
existing building, you can use a proportionate' factor.
1. Desi'gn fees - Upon completion of plans and specifications
$ 44,460
2. Contractor Payments - Assume start of construction on
April 15. ($653,845)
a. May 5% $ 32,692
b. June 5% 32,692
c. July 30% 196,154
d. Aug. 20% 130,769
e. Sept. 18% 117,692
f. Oct.~ 5% 32,692
g. Nov. 5% 32,692
h. Dec. 7% 45,770
i. Jan.-Final 5% 32~692
100% $653,845
3. Inspection fees - Spread over the construction period
16,350
8754b
Page 1.
City of Mound
Mound, Mn. 55364
Re: File No. 21402
January 4, 1984
The above figures and percentages are based on experience of other similar
projects.
If there are any questions on the project, please feel free to contact our
office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDER~IK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. O
BAL: ii
cc: Mr. Ernie Clark
@ Miller-Schroeder
8754b
Page 2.
444#75 WATERWORKS, SEWERS, DRAINS, STORM SEWERS
'/616
CHAPTER 444
WATERWORKS, SEWERS, DRAINS,
STORM SEWERS
'?.-/..01A~.~..07 [Repealed, 1949 c 119 s 110]
~?..075 WATERWORKS SYSTEMS, MAIN SEWERS, SEWAGE DISPOSAL
PLANTS.
Subdivision 1. Authorization. Any city, except cities of the first class oper-
ating under a home rule charter, or any statutory city is hereby authorized and
empowered to build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge., improve, or in any
other manner obtain waterworks systems, including mares, valves, hydrants,
service connections, wells, pumps, reservoirs, tanks, treatment plants, and other
appurtenances of a waterworks system, and sewer systems, sewage treatment
works, disposal systems, and other facilities for disposing of sewage, industrial'
waste, or other wastes, all hereinafter called facilities, and to maintain and operate
the same inside or outside its corporate limits, and to acquire by gift, purchase,
lease, condemnation or otherwise any and all land and easements required for that
purpose. The authority hereby granted shall be in addition to all other powers
with reference to such facilities otherwise granted by the laws of this state or by
the charter of any such city. Counties, except counties in the seven county
metropolitan area, shall have the same authority granted to cities by this subdivi-
sion except for ~,reas of the county organized into cities and areas of the county
incorporated within a sanitary district established by special act of the legislature.
Subd. 2. Financing. For the purpose of paying 'the cost of building, con-
structing, reconstructing, repairing, enlarging, improving, or in other manner
obtaining such facilities or any portion thereof, any such city or county may issue
.and sell its gensral obligations, which may be made payable primarily from taxes
or from special assessments to be levied to pay the cost of the facilities or from net
revenues derived from water or sewer service charges or from any other nontax
revenues pledged for their payment under charter or other statutory authority, or
from any two or more of such sources; or it may issue special obligations, payable
solely, from such taxes or special assessments or from such revenues, or from any
two or more of such sources. Real estate tax revenues should be used only, and
then on a temporary basis, to pay general or special obligations when the other
revenues are insufficient to meet the obligations. All such obligations shall be
issued and sold in accordance with chapter 475. When special assessments are
pledged for the payment of such obligations, they shall be authorized and issued in
accordance with the further provisions of chapter 429, or of the municipality's
charter if it authorizes such obligations and the governing body determines to
proceed thereunder. When net revenues are pledged to the payment of the
obligations, together with or apart from taxes and special assessments, such pledge
shall be made in accordance with' the further provisions of subdivision 3.
Subd. 3. Charges; net revenues. For the purpose of paying for-the con-
struction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement, or other obtainment
and the main'tenance, operation and use of such facilities, the governing body of
PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS 8164
475.58 OBLIGATIONS; ELECTIONS TO DETERNRNE ISSUE.
Subdivision 1. Approval by majority of electors; exceptions. Obligations
authorized by law or charter may be issued, by any municlpality upon obtaining
the approval of a majority of the electors voting on the.question of issuing the
obligations, but an election shall not be required to authorize obligations issued:
(1) to pay any unpaid judgment against the municipality;
(2) for refunding obligations; . .
(3) for an improvement, which obligation is payable wholly or partly from the
proceeds of special assessments levied upon property specially ~benefited by the
improvement, or of taxes levied upon the increased value of property within a
district for the development of which the improvement is undertaken, including
obligations which are the general obligations of the municipality,.ff the municipali-
ty is entitled to reimbursement in whole or in part from the proceeds of such
special assessments or taxes and not less than 20 percent of the cost of xhe
improvement is to be assessed against benefited property or is estimated to be
received from such taxes within the district;
(4) payable wholly from the income o! revenue producing c6nveniences';
(5) under the provisions of a home rule charter which permits the issuance of
Obligations of the municipality without election; and
(6) under the provisions of a law which permits the issuance of obligations of
a municipality without an election.
Subd. la. Resubmission limitation. If the electors do not approve the
issuing of obligations at an election required by subdivision 1, the question of
authorizing the obligations for the same purpose and in the same amount' may not
be submitted to the electors within a period of 180 days from the date the election
was held. If the question of authorizing the obligations for the same purpose and
in the same amount is not approved a second time it may not be submitted to the
electors within a period, of one year after the second election.
Su]~d. 2. Funding, refunding. Puny city, town or school distr~ct' whose out-.
standing gross debt, including all items referred to in section 475.51, subdivision 4,
exceed in amount 6 2/3 percent of its assessed va]u~ may issue bonds under this
· subdivision for the purpose of funding' or refunding such indebtedness or any part
thereof. A list of the items of indebtedness t6 be funded or refunded shall be
made by the recording officer and treasurer and filed in the office of the recording
officer. The initial reso]thion of the governing body shall refer to this subdivision
as authority fOr the issue, state the amount of bonds to be issued and refer to the
list of indebtedness to be funded or refunded. This resolution shall be published
once each week for two successive weeks in a legal newspaper published in the
municipality or if there be no such newspaper, in a legal newspaper published in
the county seat. Such' bonds may be issued without the submission of the
question .of their issue to the electors un]ess within ten days after the second
publication of the resolution a petition requesting such election signed by ten or
more voters who are taxpayers of the municipality, shall be filed with the
recording officer. In event such petition is filed, no bonds shall be issued
hereunder unless authorized by a majority of the electors voting on the question.
History: 1927 c 131 s 4; 1949 c 682 s 8; 1951 c 422 s 4; 1955 c 298 s 1; 1969
c446s I; 1971 c886s 1; 1971c903s3; 1973c 123 art 5 s 7; 1974c380s8,9
(1938-6)
475.59 MANNER OF SUBMISSION; NOTICE.
When the governing body of a municipality resolved to issue bonds for any
purpose requiring the approval of the electors, it shall provide for submission of
the proposition of their issuance at a general or special election or town or school
Election Requirements
Generally speaking, all bond issues must receive
the approval of the voters before being sold. The
frequent exceptions are those bonds issued:32
1. To pay any unpaid .judgment against the
city.
2. To refund other bonds.
When the bonds are payable wholly or part-
ly from the proceeds of special assessments,
including bonds guaranteed by the full faith
and credit of the city (this exception does
not apply if less than 20% of the cost to the
city of the improvement is to be repaid
through special assessments).33
4. Repayable wholly from the income of reve-
nue-producing facilities,
5. Under the provisions of a law permitting the
issuance of obligations without an election.
When an election is required, it must be conduc-
ted in the same manner as any other election. The
· question may be submitted to the voters at either a
general or special election. Notice is to be given in
the manner prescribed by law, but it must also
state the. maximum amount and the Purpose of the
proposed issue. Each purpose for which bonds are
to. 'be issued must be voted upon separately. The
election is invalid when two separate purposes are
contained in a single question for the consideration
of the voters. Thus, for example, it would be im-
proper to submit a proposal to issue bonds for the
construction of a city hall and the acquisition of a
power and light utility in a single election ques-
'tion.34
sue, tl~e question of authorizing the obligations for
the same purpose and in the same amount may not
be resubmitted within a period of 180 days from
the date the election. ~vas held. If submitted a sec-
ond time after 180 days and not approved, the ex-
act same question may not be submitted for at
least one year after the second election.35
issue Date: 4/01/~
Date Prir, cioal
4/01/85 0.00 0.000
4/01/86 15,000.00 9.000
4/01/87 15,000.00 9.000
4/01/88 15,000.00 9.000
4/01/89 15,000.00 9.000
4/01/90 20,000.00 9.000
4/01/91 20,000.00 9.000
4/0i/92 25,000.00 9.000
4/01/93 25,000.00 9.000
4/01/94 ~,'~ 000.00 9.000
4/01/95 30,000.00 9.000
4/0i/96 30,000.00 9.000
4/0i/97 35,000.00 9.000
4/01/98 40,000.00 9.000
4/01/99 407000.00 9.000
4/01/00 45,000.00 9.000
4/01/01 50,000.00 9.000
4/01/02 55,000.00 9.000
4/0i/03 60,000.00 9.000
4/01/04 65,000.00 9.000
int crest
56,250.00
56,250.00
54,900.00
53,550.00
52,200.00
50,850.00
49,050.00
47,250.00
45,000.00
42,750.00
40,500.00
37,800.00
35,100.00
31,950.00
28,350.00
24,750.00
20,700.00
16,200.00
ti,250.00
5,850.00
56,~50.00
71,250.00
69,900.00
68,550.00
67,200.00
70,850.00
69,050.~0
72,250.00
70,000.00
67,750.00
70,~00.00
67,800.00
70, i00.00
~,950.~0
68,350.00
69~750.00
70,700.00
71,200.00
71,250.00
70,850.00
TOTALS 625,000.00
760,500.00
I,~8~,~ ~ 500.00
Accrued Interest to 5/01/84 =
Total Bond Years =
Gross Ir, tek-est Cnst
Average Coupnn
NiC =
Average Life =
Discount ~_~ 98.3
= $
4,687.50
760,500.00
9.000%
9.129%
I3.52 Years
10,937.50
Reoc, rt Dated: 1/04/84 File: b:MND3, dbt
CITY of MOUND
December 12, 1983
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
This seems to be one of those weeks where people pose some very tough
problems and I need to turn to you for direction.
Mr. Herb Peck came to see me for about an hour and a half to discuss a
long standing (20 years) gripe he has with the City of Mound. He owns
the property on the attached map in green. It seems that in 1960 or
there about, the City began plans to extend Lynwood Blvd. to Fairview.
In order to do that, the City needed to acquire the land that is located
in what is now the street right-of-way.(Part of Lots 6 & 7, Block 2)
He was agreeable to allow this road and grant the. easement for the road,
.but in exchange he wanted the City to vacate a part of the l~keshore
platted as Lake Blvd.
A vacation of a section of Lake Blvd. on the parcel to the West was
approved by the City and became private lakeshore. A stretch was also
vacated at the North end of Block 1 to the East.
He feels the City let him down when.the Council voted 3-2 to deny his
vacation application. He feels that it isn't so much a vacation that
he sought, but it was a land exchange for the land he gave the City for
Lynwood Blvd.
Anyway for at least 18 years he has lived with the fact that he feels he
was not treated the same as the other residents around him and now he
wishes to try to correct this wrong or he will sell his property and move
to a house he has been building on the Mississippi Riger in Elk River.
That, of course, is not a reason to vacate a road, but I offer it as
background.
My question is. Would any of you even consider vacating 60' of lakeshore?
If you are inclined to view this as an open case, I'll encourage him to
apply for the vacation. If not, then I'll tell him as I already did,
that the time may not be appropriate to entertain any public vacation of
lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka.
Please share your advice with me, as if you were in my position.
Thanks.
JE:fc
--'"'8 m
19
ODRIDGE RD .~