Loading...
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.