1956-09-241676
VILLAGE OF MOUND
~I~DTES OF ADJOUrnED ~ETI~G - September 15, 1956
Neeting ~s called to order.at.the ~und Fire StatiOn at'lO:OO a.m. Present
were ~a~or ~ehmler, Trustees Livingston, Pierce, Lockhart and ~anager Boxell.
The ~y~r' s advisory co~nittee composed of the following was also present:
Dr.Huestis, Nr. ~artin, ~r. Slentz, Mr. Bowers and Mr. Xaupanger.
ment of 'LO~' I~ke Project were as follows:
List of'proper~y o~ners ~ho were to be asked for d~nation of land for I~prove-
1. J~mes Adams
2. Herbert Wolner
3. Lady of the Lake Church
4. L; M. Krause
5. John Stein
6. George Hastings (Agnes M. Jackson)
7. E, O. ~tchell
8. Ida M. Bowers
Either a ~ember of the council or of the ~ayor's AdvisOry Committee was appointed
to contact the individual property owners in the above list.
The same procedure was followed for the list of abutting 'property o~ners:
1. H.H. Correll
2. L. Hoppenrath
3. Louis Brechst
4. John All (~thel ~slrose)
5. Hans Hanson
6. C.H. Armstrong
7. F. Langberg
8. Jehovah Witnesses Church
9. Peter ~llie
10. Joseph Roberts
On ~otion
September
Fillag-e Man~ger '
duly ~mde, eecmded and carried, the meeting adjourned to meet again
24th at 8:00 P.M. in the Village Hall.
~TES OF ADJOUP~ED ~ING - September 24th, 1956
Meeting was called to order in the Village Office at 8:00 P.M. Present were
Ma~or Behmler, Trustees Livingston, Lockbart and Pierce, Attorney Bonham and
Village Manager Boxell. ~/~ ~~ ~.
~ 0RDiNANC~. AMW, NDING ZONINO OROTNANCE N0.48, RELATING TO THE
USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
The ~illage~qouncil of Mo~d, Minnesota,~Ordains: ''~ ~;
~g.o~ina~Ce No ~'48~ as amended, is hereby amended ms follows:
~. By zoning aS. commercial, and by expanding the Commercial on the "Zonin~ ~ap of ~o~, ~lnnesota" attached ~o Said
::,:'.Orainanoe,. to..~nclude ~ha~ 'certain t~act-: of land in the V~llaae of
Cowry of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, desc~ibed as
follows:,
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 117, P~nge
.... / 24, described as: Commencing at a point in 0ounty Road 10 rods South
o£ the Northeast corner-of Lot l, Section 14, Township ll?, Range B~,
~; thence N°~t$ along County Road l0 rods, thence West a!on~ Nor line
?~.~ of said LOt i to Wate~s edge on shore of Dutch Lake~ thence Southerly
along shore of Dutch Lake to a point l0 rods due South of the North
.line of said Lot l, thence East and p~rallel to the North line of
reduc
~:,~ ~ .~
;~.Distrio
Mound'
~9.'.t '-" , -. ....
:described ::'as .. '
~..~-he·:N0~theast corne~..Lot ~I
* ' '"" ~"' Wet er"'~J~e .on- '.shore of :~tCh Lak'e','~, ~henoe,'' South
.said" LOt 1 to ...... - ~.. ~..-. - -'
~0~? Shot& :of DutCh' ~ake:?~}°,..a
', .. - - A- ·: .... :' .... ?:/?~."~ ...{~.-..?:~,
rO~.'":"..u' '
VILLAGE OF MOUND
1677
R. L. Fillmore r~quested & Building permit. The Council referred to the zoning
and building ordinance of the village, which stated must have a 60 foot lot,
thus the council w~u~d net gre~t the permit.
A warmi~ house for t~ hockey ~ ~b ~hirl~y Nills school was requested.
This was held over for more information.
A hearing was held in regard t~ granting a permit for a mortuary on the Ed Ross
property. There was no opposition presented, so the permit is to be granted.
Lockhart moved, Livingston seconded that the permit be granted. On roll call
the vote was as follows:
Livingston Yea
Lockart Yea
Behmler Yea
there were no nays.
REZONING
Ed Ross Prop.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE N0.48, RELATING TO THE
USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
g6ni~g.0~'~inan'b~No. 46, '~ amended, is hereby amended a~ follows:
Section 1. By zoning aS':~G~ercial.~.~d by expanding the 0o~ercial
District on the "Zoni~.~ of ~o~d~, ~inneoota~ at~ached to oaid
0~dina~oe, tO.~ci~e,~.~t~ Oe=~mi~ t=a~: of~l~d in the Village of
~o~d, Gouty of Hennepin and State of Ninnesota, described ao
follows:
That pa=t of Government Lot 1, Section 14, Township 117, Range
$4, described as: Commencing at a point in County Road 10 rods South
of the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Section 14, Township ll7, Range 24,
the~~o l~er+J~ along County Road 10 =ods, thence Wes~ along North line
i6T8
VILLAGE OF MOUND
~iss Bonham reported that she had vritten a letter to the ~tte lneestment
in ~g~ %o the ~v~ pro~y p~sent~ o~ by ~te Mestm~t Co.
A copy of the l~ter is att~h~ he.to.
On ~t;ion duly ~de. seconded and carried the meetin~ adjourned.
ViLlage l~an~er ~'
?ence~ West along North
' ~ction ~.. i~¥r'e~ucin~th'~"Res'-t 1 to Water's
An Ordinance Amending ~-onin~ r'~t'L~ 1,'-7 removing ~f Dutch Lake,
Ordinance No. 46, Relaiing to hip 117, Range 1 District on along .~hore of
the Use o! Certain Pr~l~. ~onnnencing at Mound, Min- ~ point 10 rods
The Village Council of Mound, , Road 10 rods said Ordin- e North line of
Minnesota, Ordains:
Zoning Ordinance Noi 46, as
amended, i.~ hereby amev~decl as
follows: 11,,]8 '&
Section 1. By zoning as Com-
mercial and by expanding the
Commercial District on the "Zon-
ing Map of Mound, Minnesota"
attached to said Ordinance, to in-
clude that certain tract of land
in the Village of Mound, County
of Hennepin and State of Minne-
sota, described as follows:
heast comer of ~refrom that
Tow~hip 117. [ in the V~-
; North, along nty of Hen-
,ds, thence West ~ Mtnnesata,
~f said Lot 1 to :
shore of Dutch Lot
~utherly along valship 117,
Lake to a poLnt ! as: Com-
b of the North : in CoUnty
1, thence East 'f the North-
the Nbrth line , Section 14,
2Ae point of be- e 24, thence
, y Road 10
· - --(
e F,~t and par-
th line of said
t of beginning.
ordinance shall
a and after its
[ication.
Village Council
sota, October 1,
~ehmler, Malior
1t,,1 4
of said Lot 1 to Waterts edge on shore of Dutch Lake, thence Southerly
along shore of Dutch Lake to a point l0 rods due ~outh of the North
line of said Lot l, thence East and parallel to the North line of
said Lot i to the point of beginning.
Section E. By reducing the Residential District by removing from the
Residential District on the #Zoning Map of Mound, Minnesota" a~tached
to said Ordinance, to remove therefrom that certain tract of land in
the Village of Mound, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota,
described as follows:
That part of Government Lot l, Section 14, Township ll7, Range
E4, described as: Commencing at a point in County Road l0 rods South
of the Northeast corner of Lot l, Section 14, Township ll7, Range 24,
thence North along County Road l0 rods, thence West along North line
of said Lot I to Water's edge on shore of Dutch Lake, thence Southerly
along shots of Dutch Lake to a point l0 rods due South of the North
line of said Lot l, thence East and parallel to the North line of said
Lot I to the point of beginning.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and publication.
Passed by the Village Council of Mound, Minnesota, October l, 1956.
V[llag~ ~anager' v ~ . E.J. Behmler, Mayor
Mr. Floyd E. Nelson,
;~tt~rney at Law,
First National Soo Line Building,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
3 ~taber 1956
Re: White Investment 0ompany
Homer Rlvard Property
Dear Sir:
At a regular meeting of the Village Council of Mound held on
October I, 1956, I gave the ~ua~il a report on this matter which
included my letter of SeptemberlS,,.1956 to White Investment
~ompany. At that time,'i Llso'infor~ed them thatpursuant to our
2elephone convemsation thereafter, you indicated that White
Investment Company desired to make a counter-proposal wherein it
would suggest that the Oouncil remove the requirement that the
owner reside in one of the dwellings and that final disposition
of the matter be formalised by Oouncil resolution for the record.
I informed the Oouncil that I had not received this counter-proposal.
The matter was lnitated before the Council by a neighborhood
petition protesting against the division of the property into two
tracts with a dwelling cn each on the ground that such division
would constitute a violation of the zoning ordinance which requires
each dwelling to have a lot area of 6000 square feet and upon the
additional ground that Conversion of the garage into the second dwelling
by Mr. Rivard constituted both a.vlolation of the zoning ordimmnee and
of the building permit which limited the structure to a garage. As I
understand it, the petition requested the Council to deny the proposed
division of the tract and also to require that the second dwelling be
reconverted to a garage.
Since the counter-proposal has not been received and in view of
neighborhood protests and the Oounoilts desire to correct zoning and
permit violations, I am instructed to inform you a6 follows:
1. The Council will not permit a division of the premises, and
~. The 0ouncll requires White Investment Company to reconvert
the second dwelling back to the garage for which the permit
was issued. The Council requests this reconversion to be
done at the earliest possible time before directing the
Village Manager to institute the abatement proceedings
provided by Ordinance ~51.
Will you kindly communicate the contents of this letter to
White Investment ~ompany?
Yours very truly,
SONHAM & KAVANAGH
idential District by 'removing
from the P~ident/al District on
the "Zoning Map of Mound, Min-
nesota'', attached to said Ordin-
,ace, to remove, there/rom that
certain tract of land in the Vil-
la[e of Mound, County of He~-
nepin and State of ~ta,
de, cribed as follows:
That part of C, ov~t Lot
1, Sect/on 14, Township 117,
RanEe 24, describedas:' Con~
me~cing at a point in[ County
Boad 10 rods South of the North-
east corner of Lot 1, Seet/on 14,
Township 117, l~n~e 24,~,. thence
.North'~alon~'Count~ .l~d 10
Iin? ' 'thence' Wes~ along North
e oz said Lot 1 to Water's
t~ne, on shore of Dutch Lake,
ce Southerly along shore of
Dutch Lake to a point 10 rods
iSouth of the North line of
Lot 1, .thence EaSt and par-
allel to the North line of said
IL or 1 to the point of beginning.
Section 3. This ordinance shall
be'e~ective from and after its
passage and publication.
Passed by 'the Village Council
of Mound;'Minnesota, October 1,
1956:
Attest:
! E. ,T. 'Rehmler' l~axor
Vernon Boxell,
That part of Lot 5a ~lock Sa the Elghlanda,
lying Southerly of the Northerly 50 ft thereof.
Homer Rlvard and White Investment Company
For some time prior' to 1951, Homer Rivard was the owner off the
above described Premises upon which was located a dwelling which he
eccupled. In 1951, gr. Rivard applied for and was granted a building
permit for the erection of a garage. In September, 19S~, Mr. Rivard
was injured in ,the Course of his employment with Eenneth L. 0verholt,
d/b/a/ Friendly Motors and, at least until about the middle of 1954
was under medical care and unable to engage in full time occupation.
We understand that during this period, he began to convert the garage
into a dwelling, perhaps with the idea of renting it and adding to
his incomes or of renting his home and mov~ug into the garage. His
exact intentions are, of course, not fully known. However, duriz~
this period, ~he reconversion efforts were visible both to the
village and to the neighbors. Both Mr. Storey and Mr. Leikvold,
former Village managers were aware that reconversion had taken place
~ under one of them, water was connected to the reconverted garage
by the village. We '~uderstand that both managers took the POSition
that reconversion was an accomplished fact and nothing could be done
about it. Nothing appears to have been done about it until shortly
before ~ay 14, 1956 after Mr. Rivard sold the property to White
Investment Company, a date hereinafter referred to.
During the period roughly between 1951 and 1955, Mr. Lehmann and
Mr. Rlvard made a number of complaints against Mr. & Mrs. George
OSha who resided in the neighborhood on the grounds that the 0shes
dege were a nuisance in the neighborhood. During this period, thre·
preceedings were instituted in the Justice court by the Lehmanns and
RivardS, as a result of which the 0shes moved out of the village.
This situation is brought to your attention to show that the Rtvards
-1-
and the ~ekmazms, in. addition to being, neighbors, were engaged in
a common endeavou~. That belr~ ac, they, the Leh~.~_-~e a~md other
petitioners on the petition presented ~o the Oo~cll on May 14 of
t~s year, oo~d not have been ~aware of the reconversion of the
garage. They co~d, ~ve they So wished, contacted the Oo~cil by
petition or other~se even in view of the two ~ers statements
that nothl~ oo~d be done about the ~tter.
On ~y 14, 1956, after Mr. Rlvard sold his property to ~ite
Investment Oompany, Mr. Le~ ~d others presented a petition to
the Co, oil wherein they objected to a proposed division of the
property by ~lte Investment Oompany into two tracts, each containi~
a dwelling~ on the-gro~d that such d~vision violated the area
r~uirements of the zoning or~n~oe ~d f~thez askl~ the Oo~cil
to r~uire the reoonvezted garage to be ch~ged back to a 'garage.
It appears t~t about that time, the matter of the division
c~e to the attention of ~e actl~ village manger, ~rry ~rtin,
who refused to sanction the division on the gro~d that It would
oonsltute ~ violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Le~ and other
petitioners, appeared before the Oo~oil and urged Co,oil action
upon their petition.
After some consideration by ~e Oo~cil of the ~tter, we as village
atto~eys were~ on A~ust ~, 195~, directed to write ~lte Investment
Oo~y a letter, which appears in the ~n~es of that meetly, the'
pertinent part of which letter is ."It will be necessary for you to
reconvert the second dwelli~ back to a garage for which the permit
was originally issued. The Co,oil z~uests that this be done ~t the
earliest possible t~me. It wishes to exte~ to you the opport~lty
so doi~ befoxe directing the Village M~er to employ the abatement
pzoceedl~s p~vtded in ~oh ~tter~ by ordin~ce ~51.~
· nite Investment Oompany evidently communicated the contents of that
letter to l~r. Rlvard beaauee, on August ~Sth, I received a letter
from 01Nell Grathwol, E~celsior, attorney from M~. Rlvard, in which
he eaXd 'I f~ly appreciate the sit,rich ~d ~ wonderl~ If ~ere
some way that we can work together to work It out to save Mr. Rivard
a great deal of e~ense. It Just so ~ppena that he is in a financial
co~ition that practically precl~es him from doi~ any. thing about
this ~tter. I~ there Is any way~to work this out, would you be good
enoch to let me ~ow?~
~. ~lte of ~ite Investm~t 0ompany appeared before the 0o~cil on
September 7th, I~SS. ~e Co.oil informed him that It wo~d view ~e
premises the next day ~d lnfo~ ua, as Village atto~eys, to co~
~lcate to ~im tbs 0o~cil decision on the matter. ~e Council then
directed us to i~o~ ~ite Investment that the 0o~cil will not
pex~t ~he division of the property into two tracts with a dwelll~
on each. It will, howler, reco~ise one tract with two dwellings,
one for occup~cy by the o~er and ~he other for rent~ by the
to a tenet. These instructions were co~icated to ~lte Investment
Oo~y by ~ in our letter of 19 8ept~be~ 1956, copy of which
appears in the minutes. Since receipt of that letter by ~ite
Investment Comply, we were contacted by ~oyd E. Nelson, their
attornsy, who informed me that the decision of the Co,oil as
expressed in that letter was satisfactory except that ~ite Investment
felt that thsy, as o~ers, or anyone to whom they might sell shoed
be entitled to rent out both struct~es. He informed me that he wo~d
oo~uicate this to me by letter ~d asked that fi~ settlement be
for~lsed .by Oo~cll resolution. I have received no further co~-
lcation from him. It appears that ~tte Investment has decided to
l~ve with the letter of September 19th.
At the meeting of October 1, 1956, Mr. Lebea_un appeared ands renewed
his demand that the Council require White Xnvestment Company to
reconvert the dwelling to a garage. As a result of Oo~mnotl instructions,
I ~ave drafte~ a letter to W~lte'e attorneye~ copy' of which dr~t Xa
attached hereto. Before sending It out, I wish to have Oo~cil approv~
of lt~ lordly.
~e Co.oil s~o~d caref~ly consider this entire ait~tion before
t~lng t~is~ or f~ther actLon in ~ia ~etter. ~e Village of ~o~d
~aa been e~aged in expensive a~ ~fort~ate litigation before.