1977-09-13CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
AGENDA
Mound City Council
September 13, 1977
7:30 P.M.
City Hall
1. Minutes
2. Planning Commission Recommendations -p.280-298
3. Preliminary Street Report - North Island Park Area
4. County Road 125 - Plans and Specifications
5. Water Account No. 124-6048 -p.299
6. Anti-Trust Refund -p.262-264
7. No Parking
A. Hickory Lane - Rosedale Road -p.256-261
B. Bellaire Lane -p.256-257
C. Driftwood Lane -p.301-306
8. Deferred Assessments -p.253-255
9. Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit)
lO. Transfer of Funds
ll. Payment of Bills
12. Information Memorandums -p.220-252
13. Committee Reports
-p.300-300A
-p.263-279
307
CITY OF MOUND
RESOLUTION NO.
AGREEMENT
Relating to Parking Restrictions on
CSAH 125 from Essex Lane to Anglesey
Lane in the City of Mound, Minnesota
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ,
by and between the City of Mound, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the
Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Municipal corporation
shall hereinafter be called the "City"; and the Commissioner of Minnesota
Department of Transportation, hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Commissioner,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City or its agents has planned the improvement of CSAH 125
from Essex Lane to Anglesey Lane.
WHEREAS, the City will be expending State Aid Funds on the improvement of
said Street, and
WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum
standards for State Aid Streets and that approval of the proposed construction
as a State Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking
restrictions, and
WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be a necessary
prerequisite to the approval of this construction as a State Aid project in the
City has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
That the City shall restrict the parking of motor vehicles on both sides
of CSAH 125 from Essex Lane to Anglesey Lane at all times, unless hereafter
authorized in writing by the Commissioner.
ADOPTED by the City Council. this
ATTEST:
City C1 erk
BY:
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
· ~ Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Recommended for Approval:
Director, Office of State Aid
APPROVED:
DATE:
Co~missioner of
Department of Transportation
DATE'
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 13, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-286
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Cambridge Lane
The Council requested the Attorney answer some questions regarding
the property in question.
Attached is a copy of the Attorney's reply, along with a copy of some
court rulings on such problems.
CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE
HERBERT P. LEFLER
CURTIS A. PEARSON
J-DENNIS O'BRIEN
JOHN E. DRAWZ
JOHN B. DEAN
DAVID J. KENNEDY
GLENN E. PURDUE
JAMES D. LARSON
CHARLES L. L£FEVERE
HERBERT P. LEFLE~ /II
JEFFREY J. STRAND
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'IBRIEN & DRAWZ
IIOO FIRST NATIONAL BANF~ BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:~
September 12, 1977
TELEPHONE
{612) 333~0543
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Cambridge Lane
Dear Leonard:
I have your letter of September 8, 1977 re Cambridge Lane. I
have also reviewed council memorandum 77-270 and the attached
memorandum from Bob Miner. The facts as I understand them are
that the council has agreed to close Cambridge Road south of
Avon Lane to vehicular traffic. It is my further understanding
that the Public Works Director is working with the property owner
and has approved the construction of the retaining wall. It is
my further understanding that the City can not vacate the ease-
ment because it has other utilities in the street right of way.
You ask (1) if the wall is allowed to stand does the City give
up its rights to the easement? The answer to that question is no,
they do not give up the easement. The second question relates to
removing the wall to fix sewer or water breaks. I am enclosing
herewith a copy of a case, Kochevar vs. City of Gilbert, 114 N.W.
2d 24. I believe this case sets forth both of the examples that
you have talked about and gives the general rules followed by the
Minnesota court. They are in effect as follows:
a. The property owner owns the land, the City merely has
an easement.
b. The abutting owner may use his land for purposes
compatible with the use by the public of its easement.
c. If the property owner encroaches on the easement and
the encroachment is not an obstruction to the public's
use of the easement, there must be an adjudication that
it does obstruct the public right before it can be removed.
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
Page 2
September 12, 1977
de
Whether a use is compatible or not depends upon the
individual fact situation.
In the case I am sending you, the property owner was successful
in recovering damages from the City because it appears that his
use of the land did not have an adverse effect on the City's use
and they should not have torn out his wall without a hearing or
a showing that he was obstructing the easement. In the case of
Kelty vs. City of Minneapolis, 196 N.W. 487 the City did warn
the property owner not to construct the retaining wall. In that
case the court found that the obstruction would adversely affect
the City's use of the easement.
It appears that the Public Works Director is working with the
property owners and does not consider the construction of a
retaining wall an obstruction to the City's use of the easement.
If the construction of a retaining wall will have an adverse
effect on our maintaining the sewer and water lines, the wall
should not be allowed to be constructed, or as in the Kelty case,
the City should specifically warn the property owner that the wall
may have to be torn down and that he will not be compensated. The
wall is not the City's property, it belongs to the property owner.
I would think that the first thing you would have to find out is
where the sewer and water lines are located and the Director of
Public Works should not approve the construction of the.wall nor
work with the property owner if the location of the wall will have
an adverse effect on their ability to maintain these easements.
As I indicated to you on the telephone, the City also has the
authority now to vacate the street easement portion and retain
only a utility easement.
Very truly yours,
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
CAP :ms
Enclosure
~ ~Iinn. 1~1 NO~TH ~ESTERN ~EPO~TE~, 2d SERIES .
noted, however, that for 1964 the fixed the taxes to be levied thereafter." L.1963, street or alley, be]
subject only to
charges were based npon actual cost; thus, c. 738, [ 7. use or relnove thc
if every patient paid alt costs of services The matter is therefore remanded to the improvement
furnished, all operating costs, including the district court to make the necessary
so-called cost of educational services, would justments. 2. 51unlclpal Corpo
be recovered. But, neither this provision The pnblic has
nor the teaching function of the hospital Reversed with directions, abutting owner
supports a reasonable inference that the purpose compatibl{
provisions empowering the board to levy ~ Ifc of its easement
taxes to raise the funds appropriated are
enlarged to the extent of vesting the board a. Eminent Domain
with discretionary authority to determine Municipal Corpo~
upon what area the tax burden for any Where encroa
item of cost appropriated may be levied. ~' obstruction to publ
To approve the board's administrative Anthony I{OCMEVA~ et al., ResponO,nts, must be adjudlcat
v. can be removed,
interpretation of the act would effect a
modification of the precise manner and OITY OF GILBE~T, ApDellani- adjudication that
mode by which the board is required to ex- No. S9528. is compensable.
ercise its delegated power to levy taxes.
Such a modification would be contrary to Supreme Court of 3linnesota. 4. Mu,lclpal Corpo~
the scheme of the act and directly conflict 3Iareh 4, 1900. Whether a
with the intention of the legislature as obstruction, depenr
clearly expressed in subds. 3, 5, and 6 of ~ the use by the
3. Its effect would impose upon the county Action against city by property owners of the street; wh
taxpayers outside Minneapolis a dispro- for alleged improper removal of wall abut- in opening a street
portionate burden for the unrecovered costs ting alleyway. The District Court, St. acter is admhHstr.
of operation since the levy made is not in Lonis County, Arthur O. Anselmo, J., en- the right of an
proportion to the use and nonpayment of tered judgment for owners and city appeal- judicial protection.
services furnished to patients residing in ed. The Supreme Court, Nelson, J., held
that area.4 In our opinion, the formula that city's removal of wall which encroach- 5. Eminent Domain
{or spreading the tax burden for funds ed two feet on alleyway approximately 20
appropriated must be followed whether or feet wide was compensable absent adjudica- City's removal
not any item of estimated cost directly tion that removal was necessary because cd two feet on all
benefits the patients. Had the legislature city intended to improve alleyway for bene- feet wide was corn[
intended to grant the board discretionary fit of public, especially where adjoinin~ tion that removal
barn which protruded into alley by 1 foot city intended to im1
tax-levying power, the demonstrated skill ' fit of public, esp,
of those who drafted and passed upon this was not declared obstruction, barn which protru,
was not declared ol
act could easily have reflected such in- Affirmed.
tention in clear and explicit language. 6. ~ury ~28(15)
I. ~unlclpal corporalion~ ~83(I, 3)
The act provides that, where it is found Record disclos
upon appeal that the board has improperly It is elemental that any abutting land- consented to case b
determined the tax levies, the district court owner owns to the middle of the platted and detemined by
has power to effect adjustment by order- street or alley, and that the soil and its :;! rule 38.02, snbd. 3,'
ing an "increase or reduction of * * * appurtenances, within the limits of such . i
4. The use by county patients residing out- vahmtion of the entire ~unty; hence, Syllabus
sltle Minneapoli~ averages less than ~ that area would hear gS percent rather
percent, while the assessed valuation of than g percent of the cost of "~h~,~a- 1. It is clem(
property located within that area approxi- tional Services." landowner owns to
mates B$ percent of the total assesse4 141
land-
atted
its
such
h~'r
· KOCHEVAB; v. CITY Ok' GILBERT
Cite a~ l~it .X.V,'.2(124
street or alley, belong to the owner in fcc,
subject only to the right of the public to
tlse or remove the same for the purpose of
improvement.
2. Munlelpal Corporatlons
The public has but an easement and the
abutting owner may use the land for a
purpose compatible with the use by the pub-
lic of its easement.'
3. Eminent Domain
Municipal Corporations
Where encroachment is not clearly an
obstruction to public's use of easement there
must be adjudication that it is before it
can be removed, and its taking without
adjudication that it could be lawfully done
is compensable.
4. Municipal Corporations ~:=665
Whether a use is compatible, or is an
obstruction, depends upon the character of
the use by the abutter and the character
of the street; what the municipality does
in opening a street or determining its char-
acter is administrative or legislative, but
the right of an abutting owner is given
judicial protection.
5. Eminent Domain
City's removal of wall which encroach-
ed two feet on alleyway approximately 20
feet wide was compensable absent adjudica-
tion that removal was necessary because
city intended to improve alleyway for bene-
fit of public, especially where adjoining
barn which protruded into alley by 1 foot
was not declared obstruction.
6. Jury ~28(15)
Record disclosed that defendant city
consented to case being removed from jury
and determined by court. Rules Cfr. Proc.
rule 38.02, subd. 3, 27A M.S.A.
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is elemental that any abutting
landowner owns to the middle of the platted
~rinn. 25
street or alley, ;:nd that the soil and its ap-
purtenances, within the limits of such street
or alley, belong to the owner in fee, subject
ito the right of the public to use or..,,
ore the same for the purpose of im-'x,,
ement.~
2. The public has but an easement
and the abntting owner may use the land
for a purpose compatible with the use by
the public of its easement.
3. \Vhether a use is compatible, or is
an obstruction, depends upon the character
of the use by the abutter and the charac-
ter of the street. What the municipality
does in opening a street or determining its
character is administrative or legislative;
}~but the of abutting owner is given
right
an
~dicial ·
protection.
William R. Ojala, Gilbert, for appellant.
O'Leary, Trend & Berger, Virginia, for
respondents.
NELSON, Justice.
Appeal from an order of the district court
denying the motion of defendant city for
an order setting aside the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order for judgment,
and substituting therefor findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order for judgment
in its favor, or for a new trial.
The facts are simple. Plaintiffs, resi-
dents of the city of Gilbert, are the owners
of three adjoining lots in the city. The
record discloses that in May 1960 plaintiffs
received a letter from the city engineer
notifying them that their lawn extended
approximately 2 feet into an abuttiug alley
which was supposed to be 20 feet wide.
Plaintiffs did not contest this and the city
subsequently cut out the encroachment
claimed, leaving an edge roughly 18 inches
high. Plaintiffs then asked the city clerk
if the job had been completed and received
assurances to that effect. They then cut the
bank in toward their abutting lots another
HERBERT P. LEFLER
LAW OFFICES ~,~
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEAR$OIxI, O'EBRIEN & DRAWZ
I100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55~02 .~ TELEPHONE
September 12, 1977 ~ k / ~
Mr. Matthew Phillippi
4920 Tuxedo Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Lots 18, 19 and 20, Block 10, Arden
Dear Mr. Phillippi:
This will confirm our telephone conversation of the afternoon of
September 12, 1977 at approximately 3:45 P.M. Our conversation
was terminated when you hung up the phone and told me that you
were not coming to my office or any place else to close on the
sale of.your property. If I understand your statements over the
phone correctly, you are now demanding that the City of Mound
pay you the sum of $10,000 as a net figure regardless of what
you owe against the property.
On July 27, 1977 you and the City Manager of the City of Mound and
myself entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of your
property to the City. That transaction was to be closed on or
before September 1, 1977. If you will note in the next to the
last paragraph of that contract, it is your responsibility to
furnish the City with a registered property abstract "certified
to date". On August 8 or 9 I received in the mail a registered
property abstract which you had delivered to Mr. Kopp. That abstract
was certified to October 1, 1976. I contacted Mr. Kopp and indicated
that I could not examine that because it was too old and was outdated.
He instructed me to obtain a new abstract which I ordered from
Title Insurance Company on August 10, 1977. I asked the title company
to expedite the preparation of %hat abstract as much as possible.
A new registered property abstract was prepared and delivered to me
and on August 22, 1977 I wrote a title opinion to Mr. Kopp setting
forth the status of the property and calling attention to the fact
that there were various things that had to be done before the City
could obtain a clear title. At Mr. Kopp's direction, I also took
it upon myself to contact the fee owner, Mr. Samuel Segall and his
LA~/ OFFICES
LEFEVEIRE. LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Mr. Matthew Phillippi
Page 2
September 12, 1977
his partner, Roy A. Schwappach. I also took it upon myself to
contact First Guaranty Corporation and indicate your desire to
expedite this closing. I sent them copies of my title opinion
so that they would know what had to be done prior to the time of
closing. Mr. Segall was out of town at that time but returned
and called me and asked what had to be done. Various deeds were
prepared and certain probate matters concerning one Frances L.
Enger were accumulated and a closing date was set for September 2,
1977. I was out of town on September 2, but Mr. James Larson of
my office met with you and representatives of First Guaranty Cor-
poration in an effort to close.
It was then disc'overed that the deed from the fee owners, Segall
and Schwappach, only conveyed an undivided one-third interest to
First Guaranty Corporation. Therefore, neither First Guaranty nor
you were in a position to deed clear title to the City of Mound.
It was also my understanding that there was some difference of
opinion about real estate taxes between you and your contract vendor,
First Guaranty Corporation, and the fee owners, Segall and Schwappach.
During the week of September 6 I took it upon myself to do additional
· legal work in your behalf and contacted Mr. Segall and Mr. Schwappach
and had a new deed prepared which they executed and delivered to
my office. On September 7 I immediately called Mr. Kopp and asked
him to contact you and tell you we were ready to close. I also
suggested to him that the City pay its monies to our trust account
and that our trust account would then disburse to you, First Guaranty
Corporation and Segall. I did not hear from you until September 12
when you have informed me that you have no intention of closing
unless you get $10,000 net.
I am sorry to say that I have no control over how much you net be-
cause that depends on how much you owe the fee owner and First
Guaranty. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the check from the
City of Mound to me and I am tendering to you an offer to close on
this property immediately and I am asking that First Guaranty and
Segall attend such a closing so that we can ascertain who to pay
the money to so that the City of Mound will have a clear title.
CAP:ms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Samuel Segall
First Guaranty Corporation
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
Very truly yours,
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
City of Mound
3/7
AGENDA
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
September 15, 1977
7:30 p.m.
Wayzata City Ball
Wayzata, Minnesota
1. Call to Order.
Pre sent:
~ '~'"':"' ~'~'/" 'Ab'sent.- ......
Staff:
2. Approval of Minutes:
August 18, 1977 -
Bearing of Permit Applications:
A. 76-98. Suburban Berm,pin County Area Vocational
Technical Schools,. District 287,' Renewal Permit.
for' Grading- and .iDrainage ~ -.' Orono" and~ Medina ~. ~ ~.'~
Action taken: ' ' ' ' ' '
Be
77-41. Gregory Malik,..4908~..Three Points.'Boulevard,-Mound,'~'.-..~
Build Retaining Wall in Lake Minnetonka
Action taken:
C. 77-102.
Low'ell Johnson (Stone Ridge ~ace), Grading
for Single Family Development - Minnetonka
Action taken:
D. 77-103.
Saul Segal, 17915 Comstock Road, Minnetonka,
Site Grading in Wetlands Area
Action taken:
E. 77-104.
Stanley Markson, Setback Variance on Lake
Minnetonka - Minnetrista
Action taken:
F. 77-105.
Beth Jones & Associates, Build a' Residence,
Lake Sumbra - Victoria and Laketown Township
Action taken:
G. 77-106.
John R. ~nomas, Tonka Bay Village, Lake
Setback Variance on Lake Minnetonka
Action taken:
77-107. James Hunder, 5501 Sherwood Drive, Mound, Silt·
Removal - ~arriso~!s. Ba~ of_Lake,~Minnetonka,_...,. ............
Maintenance'Dredging'and'RipraPSh'Ore"'
'--Action taken:
I. 77-108.
Michael. Doshan, 5513 Sherwood Drive, Mound, Silt
Removal!-:Harrison, s~Bay.of..Lake'.Minnetonka, ....
Maintenance. Dredging and Riprap~Shore ~.·. -
Action taken:
Sherwood Properties,<Minnetonka;'Single'Family · ~'. ·
J. 77-109.
Action taken:
Development Involving Lot and Street Grading
3
K. 77-110.
Hennepin O~unty Department of Public Works,
CSAH 125 between Essex Lane and Anglesey Lane,
Mound - Road Construction
Action taken:
L. 77-111.
~ennepin County Department of Public Works,
Minnehaha Creek Crossing between TH 7 and
CSA~ 3, Ropkins- Removal of Arch and Replace
with Bridge
Action taken:
M. 77-112.
Methodist Rospital, 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, St.
Louis Park - Develop Surface Parking in Floodplain
Action taken:
77-113. Ervin Stobble, 315 Pineview Lane North, Plymouth,
Grading and Alteration of County Ditch - Gleason Lake
Action taken:
4
O. 77-114. Shorewood Homes, Inc., Grading and Drainage,
Single 'Family Residence, Minnehaha Creek
Floodplain - Minnetonka
Action taken:
P. .77-115. David. N...Helmers,..1961.~.Hillside. Street,...Deephaven,
Filr"NeededNear Pond~'t'o'Separate'-Proposed'CuId~sac
Action taken:
.4.
Hearing of requests or.petitions by. public for.action by ..
watershed-district~ '.
5. Hearing and discussion of matters of general public interest.
Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney:
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Russell:
1. Adoption~of Budget for 1978"
Mill Levy Authorization -
(a) Administrative Fund
(b) Water Maintenance and Repair Fund.
5
3il.
August 30, 1977
TO:
FROM ::
SUBJECT:
Mr. Kopp
Public Works Office
Cambridge Lane
We are requesting that the Cambridge road closing and proposed new
home driveway area be treated the same as on Jennings Hoad. Both
streets require that a portion of the closed streets be used by the
abutting property owners for easy access to their driveway and park-
ing areas.
The individual on Cambridge Lane is putting in his own wooden wall
to retain our dirt fill. The wall is partly on the closed right of
way. The ~ity will afford drainage behind this wall for water from
Cambridge Lane. We will rake and seed the closed portion behind this
wall and put in a walkway for the public to use. This should not
cause any inconvenience for the public or the city.
Respectfully,
Robert A. Miner
Public Works Director
RAM/ion
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 13, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-287
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Tax Forfeit Land
Attached is a copy of the notice for the tax forfeit land sale.
The first lots listed--Lots 40 and 41, Auditors Subdivision 167, did not
appear on the last list. These were being purchased tax forfeit and pro-
bably the purchaser didn't make payments.
The lots are zoned commercial and because of their size, they would be
difficult to build on--so it might be better for the City to take these
for Park land.
Since our request will go in so late, it is not known whether we can still
get these, but we can try.
O/V
$$
C**J
, ,
Official Publication
for Hennepin Cpunty
COUNTY AUDITOR'S
NOTICE OF SALE 'OF
FORFEITED LANDS
(Published in Finance and
Commerce, Friday,
Sept. 9 and 1_____6, 1977)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that I shall sell to the highest
bidder, but for not less than the
appraised value as it herein
pears, together with any ·special
assessments and a 3 per cent
Assurance Account charge, the
parcels of land herein described,
which have forfeited to the State of
Minnesota for non-payment of
taxes and which have been
classified and appraised as
prodded by law. This sale will be
governed as to terms by the
resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Hennepin
County' adopted on the 30th day o!
August, 1977 authorizing same, and
shall commence at 9:00 A.M. on
the 27th day of September, 1977, on
the 23rd Floor, Courts Tower,
"Hennepin-CoUnty Government
Center, 300 South 6th St., Min.
neapolis, Minnesota. Any parcels
for which no bid is received at the
public sale shall be sold at private
sale to anyone offering to pay the
appraised value, together with any
special assessments and a 3 per
cent Assurance Account charge·
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APPRAISING FORFEITED
LAND AND AUTHORIZING AND
FIXING THE TIME AND TERMS
OF SALE THEREOF:
RESOLUTION NO. 77-8.992
Commissioner Tlcen, seconded
by Commissioner Spartz, offered
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED, that. the
Board·approve a public sale by
public auction o! non.conservation
tax forfeited land as listed on
Appraisal List "652-A", on file in
the Office of the County Com-
missioners, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 282.01, such sale
to be held Tuesday, ~
lffH~at 9:00 ' 'the meeting
~23rd floor of the Courts
~epin County Gove/'n:
ment Center for not less than the
appraised value and that all sales
shall be full payment or on the
terms set forth on Appraisal List
"652.A".
Commissioner' Sivanich moved
that ff there is a parcel of land on
Medicine Lake, suitable for public
access, contained within Appraisal
List "652.A", that it be withheld
from sale. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ticen
· and approved as follows:
" SPARTZ--YEA
' TICEN--YEA
"~. KREMER--YEA
~ ,."!. ROBB-.N~Y ·
, SIVAIClCH--YEA
OLKON--YEA
DERUS~-YEA
The motion was approved.
The question was on the adoption'
of the resoluflnn and there were
follows: Yeas -- Spartz, Tlcen,
Kremer, Robb, Jr., Slvanich,
Olkon, Chairman Derus.
Resolution adopted.
FINANCE and
TAX FORFEITED '
LAND APPRAISAL
LIST "652-A"
Terms 'for the sale of tax for-
feited land:
$50.00 or less--full payment
$51.00-$100.00- V2 down --
balance in 5 equal annual in.
stallments
$101.00-$500.00 -- V4 down --
balance in 5 equal annual in.
stallments
501,00 or more -- I/5 down --
balance in 10 equal annual ha..
stallments
All sales shall be subject to a 3
per cent. assurance account
charge, payable at the time of
~urchase.
Installments and interest at the
rate Of 4 per cent per annum on all
deferred' installments'shall
become due on the anniversary of
the date of Purchase, provided
however, that the entire unpaid
balance of said purchase price,
with accrued interest, may be paid
at any time before the final in.
stallment becomes due; and
~ All parcels shall be sold subject
to. existing leases, if any; to
easemgnts obtained by govern-
mental subdivision, or agency
thereof, for any public purposes; to
~ restrictions appearing of record at
the time of the tax judgment sale;
to all existing laws and' or-
dinances; and to the condition that
the appraised value does not
represent a basis for future taxes;
and,
All amounts on the appraisal list
which are marked with an
asterisk(*) are unpaid special
assessments and are subject to a
~eassessment or new' assessment
)y a municipality on the balance; it.
my, which exceeds the purchase
~rice (less administration costs)
mrsuant to Chapter 259, Laws
976, ,
Appraised ~
.. Value
;SCRIPTION Dollars
CITY OF MOUND #1 ($~)
AUDITORS
SUBDIVISION
NUMBER 167
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
Lots t0 & 41 ................ $ 3,000.00
AUDITORS
SUBDIVISION
NUMBER 168
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
E Si of that part of Lot 46
lying S of the Wly ext of
Nly line of Lot 14 N of N
line of Lot 55 and E of W
25ft of Lot 46, Lot 46 ......$ 1,000.00
The W Y~ of that part of Lot
46 lying S of the Wly ext of
Nly line of Lot 14 N of N
line of Lot 55 and E of
25 ft of Lot 45, Lot46 ..... $ 1,000.00
L P CREVIERS
SUBDIVISION OF
PART OF LOT 36
LAFAYETTE PARK
That part of Lot 3 lying N of
the S 6 ft thereof, Lot 3,
Block 3 .................. $ 400.00
DREAMWOOD
Lotsg& 10, Block 9 ........ $ 100.00
1,284.61'
Lot 11, Block 12 ............
1,0$3.a0-
Lot 1,Block 13 ......
COMMERCE 3
FRIDAY, SEPT. 9, 1977
Appraised.
Value.
DESCRIPTION Dollarsl
CITY OF MOUND#I (85)
(Continued)
THE HIGHLANDS'
Lot 4, Block $ .............. $ 4,500.00
1,114.42'
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
ADDITION TO
LAKESIDE PARK
MOUND
MINNE TONKA
Lot 31 and that part of Lot
32 lying S of the N 10 ft
thereof, Block 2 .......... $ 3,000.00
MOUND SHORES
Lot93 ..................... $ 2,500.00
· REG LAND
SURVEY NO. 1222
Tract A ................... $ 6,000.00
-. 2,521.63*
.SHADYWOOD POINT
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA c '
Lot2; Block 5 .............. $
· Lot24, Block5 .......... ":~.$ 4,000.00
"', 1,271.63'
Lot 10, Block6 ............. },, 1.000.00
'1,063.30°
Lot 3, Block ? ..............$ 1,000.00
1,I05.70'
Lot 4, Block 7 ...: .......... $ 1,5~.00
Lot 5 and the S % of Lot 4,
Block 17 ................. $ 2,500.00
: ~' ., J'. 1,243.92'
WOODLAND POINT
Lots 2~ & 24, Block 10 ; .....$ 2,500.00
1,406.75'
CITY OF MOUND 112 (32)
' ARDEN
Lot 25, Block 5, ex st ....... $ 1,200.00
1,151.13'
Lot 25, Block 5, N 50 ft ex st. $ 1,200.00
a09.21'
DEVON
Lot 4, Block 5 .............. $ 500.00
1,080.53'
Lot 12, Blo. ck 19 ............ $ , 500.00
658.04*
PEMBROKE
Lots 12 & 13, Block 1 ..... ;.$ 3,000.00
1,241.3~*
Lots 22 & 23, Block 1 .......$ 3,000.00
1,344.94'
Lots 10 & 11 ex st, Block 4 .. $ 6,000.00
1,874.03'
Lots 11 & 12, Block 9 ....... $
2,710.63'
SETON
Lots 7 & 19 also the N Si of
Lot 8 & the N Si of Lot 18
incl adj Si of st vac, Block
28 ....................... $ 3,000.00
· 1,977.82'
Lots 9 & 17 also the S % of
Lot I! & the S Si of Lot 18
incl adj Si of st vac, Block
28 ....................... $ 3,000.110
263.~9'
WHIPPLE
Lots 1 & 2, Block6 ......... $ 1,500.00
1,342.07'
Lots 1 & 2, Block t8 ........ $ 6,000.00
1,Iii0.17*
Lots 3 & 4, Block 1~ ........ $ 1,0~0.~0
WYCIiWOOD. 500.00
Lot l, Block 2$ . . .' ....... ;..$ 5~.00 '
/ 851.01'
Nly 44 ft of Lots 15, 16 & 17,
Block 33 .......... / ..... $ 600.00
/ 2,094.97*
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Mi nnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-276
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
No Parking Driftwood Lane
The property owners on Driftwood Lane have petitioned (see copy attached)
that there be no parking on Driftwood Lane from Bartlett Boulevard to the
end of Driftwood.
Reports from the Public Works Director and Police Chief are attached.
The "No Parking" is recommended. If parking is removed, an ordinance
change is required.
f
ON LAKE MINNETONKA INDIAN IBURIAL, MOUNDil
deL_ Il I [I I -- ' ..... - ....................
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155
September 6, 1977
TO: Mr. Kopp
FROM: Public Works Office
SUBJECT: No l~rkin9 Request
We have received a request for No Parking both sides of Driftwood Lane. As noted
in the letter of request, it is a very narrow 9raveI road, the right of way is
twenty feet. The maintained portion of Driftwood Lane is approximately twelve feet.
This request is reasonable and recommended by the Public Works Dept.
Respectfully,
Public Works Director
RAM/jcn
ON LAKE; MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAL MOUND~
534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 4,72-1155
September 8, 1977
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Leonard Kopp - City Manager
Charles Johnson - Chief of Police
Parking on Driftwood Lane
1. PROBLEM:
e
The residents in homes on Driftwood Lan, have submitted a petition
requesting that the road be posted "No parking" because of hard-
ships and inconvenience it causes for moving traffic on the roadway
when cars are parked.
ASSUMPTIONS: There is adequate parking for residents and their guests on
their private property.
FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM: Control of parking in this area is essential
for the safety and welfare of the residents.
A. Driftwood Lane is a very short roadway
running south from the 4800 block of
Bartlett Blvd.
B. Driftwood Lane roadway is only 16' wide
which is Just barely wide enough for
vehicles traveling north and south
simultaneously to pass one another.
C. Certain residents on Driftwood Lane have
signed a petition requesting that the roadway
be posted for no parking.
4. DISCUSSION:
A. Indescriminate parking along Driftwood Lane severely impairs
roadway travel.
B. It is necessary that the roadway remain openat all times to
insure access for residents and of equal importance access
for police and fire department in case of emergency.
CONCLUSIONS: Driftwood Lane south from Bartlett Blvd. to Seton Lake should
be posted for no parking on both east and west sides.
6. ACTION RECOMMENDED:
Amend city ordinance 46.29 to read "No parking on
Driftwood Lane both east and west sides."
The public works department should post as soon
as possible the no parking signs.
7. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of petition as submitted by residents on Driftwood Ln.
Respectfully,
CharIe~ Johnson
Chief of Police
CJ:lao
15
NORTHERN
ROAD
,o l
LJ .;
2.
.e¢ord plot.
ELMER j. . PETERSON
COUN~[¥. SURVEYOR
HENNEPIN cOUNT¥,MINN-
./
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9~ 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-277
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Preliminary Street Report - North Island Park Area
Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Report for the streets and storm
drainage in the North "Island Park" Area.
There are l0 storm drain areas involved with varying costs. The Engineer's
suggestion of putting all the drain projects in one should be discussed by
the Council.
rd L. Kop~p/)
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-278
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Water Account 124-6048
The subject water account has requested a credit on his service billing
for the summer quarter of 1976.
This request comes about because his meter was not read for three quarters
including the summer quarter of 1976, when he used a considerable amount of
water for watering during the drought.
He has been billed as follows:
Reading
March 76 (Read) 133,000
June 76 (Estimate) 158,000
Sept. 76 (Estimate) 168,000
* Sewer based on March quarter
Dec. 76 (Estimate) 178,000
March 76 (Read) 276,000
June 77 (Read) 293,000
Gallons Used Billing
24,000 18.81
25,000 31.42
10,000' 21.84'
lO,O00 16.24
98,000 108.24
17,000
The owner feels that 18,000 gallons is his normal usage and his sewer billing
should be based on that for all quarters.
If that would have happened, his
billing would have been: Billing w~ulq be
Billed Usage Was 'if Meter Keaa Difference
June 76 31.42 25,000 --' --31.42 --
Sept. 76 21.84 62,000 41.18 + 19.34
Dec. 76 16.24 18,000 25.17 + 8.93
March 77' 108.42 18,000 25.17 - 83.25
177.92 122.94 (54.'98)
In effect, the home owner is requesting a $54.98 sewer credit and has requested
to be heard.
This will be listed on the September 13th Agenda.
Le~ara L. ~opp · ~ '
CC: Account # 124-6048
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-279
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Planning Commission Recommendations
Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes.
required on the following:
Council action is
Item 1.
Fence Height Variance
Lot 9 and Part of Lot 10, Block 3, Pembroke
This was continued from the July Planning Commission meeting.
of the request are attached.
Copies
The Planning Commission recommended: The fence be allowed to stand
providing: 1) The Police Department agrees that the fence will not
have an adverse effect on traffice and traffic safety and 2) Fence
meets the proper front setback height off Sterling.
The Administration concurs in the recommendation providing the fence
is not on road right-of-way.
Item 2.
Side Yard Variance - Undersized Lot
Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Lakeside Park Crockers 1st Division
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended the proposed garage addition be
authorized and that the land be divided into two building sites.
Parcel A - Lots 6 and 7
Parcel B - Lots l, 2 and 3
8,250 square feet
9,112 square feet
Item 3.
Sign Variance
Lots 2,3,4,5,6,36 and 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F
Zoned Commercial
The Planning Commission recommended construction of the signs requested,
provided none of the signs overhand public property. The Administration
concurs.
Item 4.
Subdivision of Land
Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 4, Lakeside Park Crockers 1st Division
Zoned Residential B - 6,000 square feet for single family dwelling
The Planning Commission recommended the division of land as follows:
Parcel A - Lot 17 and N.½ of 18 6,760 square feet
Parcel B - Lot 19 and S. ½ of 18 7,700 square feet
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-279 - Planning Commission Recommendations
September 9, 1977 - Page 2
IItem 5 Fence Height Variance
i~ Lot l, Block 2, Highland Shores
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
Planning Commission recommended the fence request be granted.
variance is a 6 foot fence rather than 42 inches.
Item 6 Special Use Permit
Lots 7-11, Part of 6 and 14-18, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A
Zoned Commercial
The
The applicant wishes to rent office space to a printing sales office
company. This is a permitted use in Commercial. The request is due
to the parking variance previously granted.
The Planning Commission recommends the use. The Administration concurs
since the use will not require a great amount of parking.
Item 7
Subdivision of Land
Lots 7-13, Block 16, The Highlands
The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat. The Council
should call a public hearing on this replatting. The Planner has
made a report on this (copy attached).
Item 8
Zoning Variance
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Skarp's East Lawn
Tabled for more information
Item 9
Street Front Variance
Lot 8, Block 7, Shadywood Point
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The applicant wishes to build his garage on subject lot which is
across the street from his property. The lot in question is under-
sized for a dwelling--has about 6,050 square feet.
The Planning Commission recommended the garage construction providing
all setbacks be meet and that the lot be legally joined with the lot
the applicant's home is on--so the lots can not be sold separately.
Item l0
Subdivision of Land
Lots 12,13,14 and Part of 15, Block 4, A.L.Crockers 1st Division
Zoned 6,000 square feet per site
l'he Planning Commission recommended the lots be divided into two parcels:
Parcel A - Lot 12 and North 30 feet of Lot 13 = 8,400 square feet
Parcel B - Lot 14, the South 10 feet of Lot 13
and the North ½ of Lot 15 = 8,400 square feet
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-279 - Planning Commission Recommendations
September 9, 1977 - Page 2
Item ll
Side Yard Variance
Lot 23, Block 5, Shadywood Point
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended that a 6.2 foot variance be
granted on the N.W. side and allow the present non-conforming dwelling
to be expanded providing that all other side yard and setbacks be
maintained.
Item 12
Possible Appeal - Street Front and Rear Yard Variance
Lot 56, Auditor's Subdivision 168
Zoned A-1 10,000 square feet
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variances because
a house can be designed to fit the lot.
Item 13 Stack Height Variance
Tonka Toys
The Planning Commission recommended that the stack on an energy
saving burner be allowed to extend to 45 feet.
Item 14
Sign Variance
Nbrthwestern Preparatory School, 2900 Highland Boulevard
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended an oversized sign providing it
does not interfere with traffic egress visibility.
/,ST
o~:~ouricaeun ~eA iq, OA
ON LAKE: MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAL MOUNDS
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155
September 2, 1977
TO:
FRO}~i:
SUBJECT:
Leonard Kopp - City b~nager
Charles Johnson - Chief of Police
Lots 9, P/10, Block 3, Pembroke - fence variance
After checking the fence at the above location for possible adverse effect on
traffic safety, I concluded that the fence does not interfere with the traffic
flow on Lamberton, Stirling, or Tuxedo.
Respectfully,
Charles ,Jo~nson
Chief of Police
CJ:lao
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
ADDRESS
PLAT
PAR CEL / ]-/0 ~
..LOT q 4~ ~'oru,~BLOGK ~.
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Address
Telephone
Number
VARIANCEREQUESTED:
FRONT ':il FT.I ACCESSORY
YARD [ BUILDING
SIDE .
YARD FT. FOOTAGE
NOTE:
FT~i
FTJ
N. C. U.* or
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to.lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
Z. 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.
OTHER (describe)
.... / ' _
.... A" building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
¥,,.; :.~-:' ,,~--'"co~uncil-res 0Iution. or variance granted becomes null and void.
:':: ..................... /r~5~ _~_~-~ ~_r~2~-~---~J DATE ~5 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMIV[ ENDATION
DATE
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.,
DATE
:::non- c onforming us e
' · ~ ~ I ' ~' ~ '~
. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , -.-/ ... ::~
·
. ... ~ ,~.: ..... ..~ ~ ~/~ . ~ ~-. .~ ~
- .~.'.~ ...... · Ix ~ ~ ~ ~ TI,~ t~ 1 ~q-
.....~.. ~ ~ ~:;. . I c~ ~ .~...
"' ' !'~ i'~ :-.
..... ! ~
' '-J ~'4 "~
C~ fie, re of Survey:
I h~reby c.-rti~y that %hi.- i, - true and corr-c% re~.res~ntatton
~et of ~t 7 lying ]~l, of.th-. ~uth 60 f-et .of said lot~, ~ock
%he wea~ ~ f-"~ of ~t 7, ~oek 3, 'p~k-. It do~s not
~al-: 1" ' AO' ~nd Surveyor .'nd Pl~nor
o ~ ~n
-,-non- contormlng use
Phone: Wa~,x,,ta 435
OF PROPERTY OF_
d~.scrib~d as follows:
Scale: I inch ~0 feet.
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
I hereby certify that on__ ,. 19 _
I made a survey of the location of the building on the above
de.,cribed property and that the location o! said building i~
correctly sho~n on the above plat.
CEI~TIFICATE OF /SUBVEY
I hereby certify that on ~Y.u~- ~-~ ~ 19~
I su~eyed the pro~y de~ribed above and that the above
plat ~ a correct repre~tation of sai~ su~ey.t~
~ ~/ .
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 8, 1977
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Leonard L. Koop, City Manager
Don Levens, Planner,~
Sinclair Court Subdivision
Lots ? through 13, Block 16, The Highlands
The development of the nrooosed subdivision between the unimproved
Sinclair and Muriel Roads will include the replat of five (5) lots
with sufficient front yard set backs, increased building sites
and a better utilization of l~nd.
The preliminary site improvement costs for the five (5) lot sub-
division are:
Sewer $9,800.00
Water 8,100.00
Street 9,hOO.O0
Total ~27,300.00
An Environmental Impact Statement may be required under Minnesota
Environmental 0uality Council Rule 32 by Petition. The rule indicates
"Anyperson or group of persons may file with the Council a netition
that contains the signatures and addresses of 500 or more individuals
and requests the Council to require an Environmental Impact Statement
on an act~.on."
A Public Hearing for the Sinclair Court Subdivision is oronosed for
Tuesday, October h, 1977.
September 2nd, 1977
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
~341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota ~364
RE: Plat of Sinclair Court
Dear Mr. Kopp:
This letter is to furnish you and the city council with general
information regarding the plat of Sinclair Court.
The land in question~was originall~platted as Lots 7 - 13, Block
16, the highlands between the dedicated roads named Sinclair Road
and Muriel Road. Both of these roads although dedicated have never
totally been constructed.
The applicant proposes to re-plat this area into five larger lots
on which custom homes are contemplated to be built taking into
consideration each building site and the desires of the new home
ow-ne rs.
The preliminary plat was approved by your planning commission on
August 2~, 1977.
The applicant would now appreciate city council approval of this
plat so he may proceed with road and utility work, and proposes
that such work is to be completed as soon as possible so that when
the final plat is to be recorded all work will be complete to
specifications of your city. The applicant wishes to proceed in
a manner to permit home construction as early in 1978 as possible.
The existing platted lots presently meet building Codes, however
the new platting will enhance the existing lots in what we consider
to be a better utilization of the land.
The city has been furnished with c~pies of the preliminary plat,
drainage plan, topography plat and preliminary utility plan as
prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., land surveyors and
consulting engineers. All work meets the requirements as stated
in Chapter 22, platting and subdivision regulations. We also wish
to thank the city of Mound for their assistance in this matter.
Very tHY ygu~s,,/ ~-
She~l~oh'O. Rhodes
Consultant to Mr. Lou Derner, Applicant
0
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND:
I regret that I can not be present at this meeting to discuss a problem
that I fell needs to be brought to the attention of this council. I work
nights and presently am unable to take the time off.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Barney Duhachek, 1957 Lakeside Lane,
Mound, Minnesota, desires a garage to be built on residential district 587,
parcel 61980, lot 8, block 7, Shadywood(see attached). This property
borders the east side of my property. It is my belief that a structure
of any kind will detract from the value of my property.
In a conversation I had with Mr. Duhachek on Sunday, August 21,1977,
he stated that whether or not I sign the variance he would store items
on the property. He did not elaborate on the items to be stored but I
feel if this property is to be used in this manner it would eventually
become an "eye sore" to the entrie neighborhood and would be a target
for vandels. This would also decrease the value of my property.
Again I express my regrets that I can not personally attend this meeting,
but I am confident that if a ruling must~ be made concerning this subject
my opinions will be taken into considera~tion.
Sincerely,
Gerald T. Baron
1956 Lakeside Lane
Mound, Minnesota
55364
M
APPLICATION FO~ARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF
APP LI CAN T
James H. Hoiby
Northweste?n P~epa~ato~/ School
FEE $ A; ~
PROPERTY
ADDRESS 2900 Highland Bouleva~'d
PLAT 61810 ,, PARCEL 0300
Addre s s
2900 High lanA
eva, rd .... LOT
Telephone
Number ~77.180~ ADDITION
BLOCK
Minnesota Baptist Assembly.
INTEREST IN PROPERTY Owner
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Address
Telephone
Nurnber
VAPJ3%NCE REQUESTED:
FRONT I
YARD FT~
YARD .
ACCESSORY
B UI LDING
NOTE: I. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
[ FT.] inrelati°nt°l°tlines' °therbuildings
on property and abutting streets.
2_. Give ownership and dimensions of
I [ adjoiningproperty. Showapproximate
FT:, 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
--- f)/f/~ / request,
,:...a 'AUG22 1977' ·"
LOT SIZE
REAR [ LOT SQ.
YARD FT.[ FOOTAGE
N. C. U.* or
OTHER (describe)~- ,
REASON FOR REQUEST.'~/
By, .....................................................
A building permit must be applied for within one year from the dat~e of the
council resolution o~'~arlance~ g ~.~anted beoomes~ull and void. /'~ )
Signa~re '/
PLANING COM~SSION RECOMMENDATION
DATE
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO,~
DATE
;::non- conforming us e ' ~
O013L-~LI~ (7-,L9) ~]NOH~=IIB/
'~'J.O$~3NNII~ 'I:3Nr~OIAI Q~I~'A~3"lr~O8
"IOOH~ AH O.L¥~'v'd 5Hd
II I
Q N V'-I H ~31H 006[
NH3.L$3/V~HJ_HON
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-280
TO;
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
County Road 125 - Plans and Specifications
Attached is a copy of a letter from the County, a proposed resolution and an
agreement to be signed for the improvement of County Road 125 from Tuxedo
Boulevard to West of Essex Lane.
In addition, Plans and Specifications have been received--all for Council
approval. The County expects to do the work in the Spring.
Estimated cost of the project is $172,508.60 of which, it is estimated that
Mound will have to pay $25,340.92 made up as follows: (See last page of Con-
tract)
Adjust Water Curb Box
Concrete Curb & Gutter
7 Foot Concrete Drive
Bituminous Walkway
Part of Storm Sewer
Right of Way Acquisition
$ 450.00 - 100% Mound
5717.25 - 50% "
1225.00 - 50% "
1401.52 - 75% "
10657.00 - 50% ~
2000.00 - 100% "
Sub-Total $21,450.77
20% for Engineer
3,890.15
Total $25,340.92
The above can be paid out of MSA funds. Also the walkway could be paid from
Revenue Sharing funds if the Council desires.
The following Council action is required:
1. Passage of the attached Resolution approving Plans and
Specifications.
2. Authorize the Mayor and Manager to sign the attached Contract.
Public Works
Phone 93! ',381
320 Washington Av. Sou
HeNNePiN COUNTY
September 2, 1977
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Mr. Eugene A. Hickok, Engineer
l~innehaha Creek Watershed District
Dear Mr. Hickok:
specia ' ' a permit application for the
Enclosed are plans,
above project.
Copies of Council resolutjons from the City of Mound, regarding the project,
are also enclosed for informational purposes.
The project is scheduled for an early fall of 1977 letting.
Should you have any questions, or require additional data, please contact
US.
Ver~7~ruly you~, l~' //~ -")
Administrative Engineer - Design
DSS:JEA:ar
cc: Leonard Kopp, Manager
City of Mound
Minor/ties, Women and Other Protected Classes are Encouraged to appty
lo[ Employment at Hennepin County
MINNEHAHA CREEK ~RSHED DISTRICT BOARD
P. O. BOX 3B7 %qAYZATA~ MINNESOTA 55391
PEP~IT APPLICATION - PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
~NAGERS
DNR PA NO.
APPROVAL YES
DATE NO
DATE RECEIVED
DATE INSPECTED
APPLICANT NAME Hennepin County Dept. 'of Public Works
ADDRESS 320 Washinqton Avenue South
Hopk~ns~ Minnes0ta 55343
px!Kre]iminary ap_prova] from City of .
TEL. 935-338]
DATE 1/11/77
PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CSA..H #125 (between ~-s_~x Lane & Anglese¥ Lane.]
SW 1/4 Section, l, 9 Tll7N, R23W
BODY OF WATER Adjacent to Lake Minnetonka
DESCRIBE WORK & OBJECTIVES
* For dredging permits describe proposed method of excavation
and erosion/siltation control and proposed location of spoil
disposal.
* For ground water withdrawal' give number, location and depth
of proposed wells and estimated gallons annual use.
Safety improvement, which will consist of alignment change, grading,
storm sewer and bitumi, nous surfacing, Ero,~i,o~ and siltation control
covered in special,.provisions.
SIGNED
EARTHWORK DIMENSIONS (FEET) 1,250',.X variable width
EARTHWORK VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS) ]9,]67
ATTACH DRAWINGS SHOWING PRESENT CONDITIONS & PROPOSED CHANGES
Ail maps must show:
* scale
* government land lines and property boundaries
* topography (two-foot contour intervals) using sea level
* a plan of proposed improvements datum
* locations of soundings and soil borings
Cross sections must show:
* water and land_profile showing highest known water level
* ~struc~on~'et~i~
Administrative
Public Works
Phone
320 Washington Av. S I' Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
HeNNePIN COUNTY
September 7, 1977
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
Re: County State Aid Highway No. 125
County Project 7630
Submitted herewith are one set of plans, two copies of the proposal, three copies
of the construction cooperative agreement and a sample copy of a resolution
approving plans and specifications for the above referenced project for which
arrangements are being made to call for bids.
If the special provisions in the proposal are satisfactory, please have your
engineer approve the proposal provided for that purpose and return it to this
office. The other proposal is for your files. It is desirable that we have
an approved copy of said proposal in our files before we release the authorization
for publication of the advertisement for bids.
If the agreement is satisfactory, please have all three copies, signed by the
appropriate city officials and return to this office. Upon completion of the
remaining signatures by county officials, we will send you one fully executed
copy of the agreement for your files. Also, please return a certified copy of
the resolution authorizing the mayor and manager to sign the agreement.
A resolution approving plans, specifications, and special provisions must be
passed by the City Council prior to our advertisement for bids.
We will be happy to review the plans, or any of the documents, with you at your
convenience if you have_any questions concerning them.
V%~truly you ,~,,~:! ,':~' ~
Don S. Spielmann, PyE.
Administrative Engineer- Design
DSS:WGM:ar
Enc.
Minorities, Women and Other Protected Classes are Encouraged to apply
for Employment at Hennepin County
At a duly authorized meeting of the City Council of .Mound
Minnesota, the following resolution was moved and adopted:
RESOLUTIO~I
WHEREAS, Plans for Hennep~n County Project
No. 7630 showing proposed alignment, profiles, grades, and
cross sections, together with specifications and special provisions for the
(c-x~~M), (reconstruction), (~m~m~m~), of County State Aid
Highway No. 125 within the limits of the City as a (~a~ex~t)
(~%~Z~) (County) Aid Project have been prepared and presented to the City.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED: That said plans, specifications, and
special provisions be in all things approved.
Dated this day of , 19
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of Mound
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of
Mound
Mound
19
at a meeting thereof held in the City of
, Minnesota on the day of
, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession.
(Seal)
City Clerk
A.~reemen'~ No. PW 30-06-77
County Project No. 7630
County State Aid Highway No. 125
City of Hound
County of Henn~pin
CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT Made and entered into this day of ,
19 , by aF~d between ttie County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter re'Ferred to as the "County"
and the City of Mound,. a body politic and corporate under 'the laws of the State
of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, The County and the City for some time have been negotiating to
bring about the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 1.25
from Essex Lane to Anglesey Lane (Engineer's S'[ation 8+00 to Station 20+43) as
shown on the County Engineer's plan for County Project No. 7630, which improve-
ment contemplates and includes grading, storm sewer, bituminous surfacing, and
other related improvements, and
NHEREAS, The above described project lies within the corporate limits of
the City, and
NHEREAS, The County Engineer has heretofore on June 9, 1977 prepared an
engineer's estimate of the quantities and unit prices of materials and labor
for the above described project and an estimate of the total cost in the sum of
One Hundred Seventy Thousand, Five Hundred Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents
($170,508.80). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto
and by this reference is made a part hereof, and
NHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties
hereto under the provisions of M.S. Sec. 162.17, Subd. 1.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I
That the County or its agents will adver-~ise for bids for the work and con-
struction of the aforesaid Project No. 7630, receive and open bids pursuant to
said advertisement and enter into a contrac-~ with the successful bidder at the
unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to l'aw in such case
provided for counties, l'he Contract will be in form and will include the plans
and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and
specifications are by ~his reference made a part hereof.
The County will administer the Contract and inspect the construction of the
contract work centemplated herewith, ttowever, the City Engineer oF lqound shall
cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent
necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the ~.~ork.
III
The County or its agents shall acquire all rights of way, permits and/or
easements required for the construction of said project.
The final total cost of all rights of way, permits and/or easements, plus all
costs incurred by the County in acquiring said rights of way, permits and/or
easements shall be apportioned 100 percent to the City of l.~ound.
lhe right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acqui-
sition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring to any
person or persons, including private utilities in relocating or removing or
adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken
and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such right of way,
whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the performance of such
contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 125, as
shown on the plans for County Project No. 7630.
The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit
to the City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs incurred
by the County. Said costs shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days
after submittal.
The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in said
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
IV
The City shall reimburse the County for its share in the construction costs
of said project and the total final construction costs shall be apportioned as
set forth in the division of cost breakdown in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page I of this
agreement is an estimate of the construction costs of said. project and that the
unit prices set forth in the contract with the successful bidder and the final
quantities as measured by the Engineer shall' govern in computind the total final
construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the
provisions of this paragraph.
-2-
V
In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of-the construction
and right of way costs, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to
twenty percent (20%) of the amount computed as the City's share of the said con-
struction costs, it being understood that said additional payment by the City
is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in
connection with the ~,~ork performed within the corporate limits of the City.
Vi
Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder,
'the City shall deposit with the Finance Division Director of Hennepin County,
ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the construction and engineer-
ing costs for the project. Said estimated City share shall be based on actual
contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans.
The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the comple-
tion of the project and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final
Estimate for the project showing the City's final share in the construction and
engineering costs for the project.
Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin
County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned
to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the
Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment
for the construction and engineering cost of this project.
VII
The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the
specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request.
VIII
All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project.
shall be subject to examination by the representative of each.
IX
The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five
(5) years after completion of the project for any service cuts in the roadway
surfacing of the County Highway included in this project for any installation of
underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall
be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities.
-3-
X
it is agreed that the City will remove and replace all City owned signs that
are within the construction limits of this project, all at City expense.
XI
It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed
herein, all new bituminous walk included in said in~.provement shall become the pro-
perty of the City and all maintenance, restorai~ion, repair or replacement required
thereafter shall be performed by the City at its own expense.
It is further understood that neither the County, its officers, agents or
employees either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or
liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action
of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of
the hereinbefore described work by the City, or arising out of the negligence of
any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of any
maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work; and the City agrees to defend,
save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all
claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance
by the City, its officers, agents or employees.
The maintenance responsibility hereinbefore provided shall not preclude the
restoration, repair or replacement of the said bituminous walks under a subsequent
agreement executed between the County and the City with costs shared as provided
in said agreement.
XII
Detouring of traffic will be necessary during the construction. The detour
routes shall be mutually agreed upon by the County and the City. All guide signs,
regulatory signs and pavement markings shall be furnished, installed, and maintained
by the County at no expense to the City.
The County will, at its expense, maintain said detour routes while they are
in use.
The County does not agree to become responsible for any damage caused by
increased traffic on City streets not marked as an official detour or alternate
route.
-4-
XIII
It is agreed that the County, at its expense, shall place all the necessary
no parking signs and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for
the prohibition of on-street parking within its corporate limits on that portion
of County State Aid Highway Ilo. 125 constructed under this project.
Any modification of the above parking restriction shall not be made without
first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Comm'issioners permitting
said modification.
XIV
It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be res-
ponsible or liable to the other or to any person or persons whomsoever for any
claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising
out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the other
as provided for herein; and each partY further agrees to defend at its sole
cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting
any-claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of
performance of its own work as provided herein.
XV
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other
persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required
or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered
'employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under
the Worker's Compensation Act or the ,Unemployment Compensation Act of the State
of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims
made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be
rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County.
Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by
the County in the performance of any work or services required or.provided for
herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the
City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of 'Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees
while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein
shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City.
-5-
XVI
The provisions of M.S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating
to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of
Hennepin County shall be considered a part of t-his agreement as though fully set
forth herein.
XVII
The County has applied for a Community Development Block Grant from the
United States Department of tlousing and Urban Development for the funding of its
cost share for the construction of this project. This agreement shall not be
binding on the parties hereto unless said grant is made available to the County.
-6-
Iii I'ESTII.IONY ~,:HEREOF, The parties hereto hive caused this agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF MOUND
By
Mayor
Date:
(Seal) And:
Manager
Da'te:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
^TTEST:=..
By
Chairman of its County Board
Date:
Deputy CoUnty Auditor
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Date:
Upon proper execution, this agreement
will be legally valid and binding and
upon date of approval is in compliance
with ali laws relating to the subject
matter hereto.
i stant CountY Attorney' .
Date:
By
Deputy County Administrator
Date
By
Director of' Public Works and
County Engineer
Date:
Approved as to execution
By
Assistant County Attorney
By
Chief Engineer
Date
Date
I
!
I
-i
LJJ
00
UU
O0
~0
UH
LO
I---0
I.LI
~0000000~0000
~0 O0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 C~ 0
~0 O0 O40~ 00000
0000 ~ ~000~
~0~ ~~00~
0
0
0000
0000
00~00000
~0000~
000~
0~
III1¢ III
0 0
0 0
LC) 0
0 Od
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
II
I"'-
0
I---
0
U
0
U
~J
0
0
U
U
0
U
0
0
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-281
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Anti-Trust Refund
In 1974 as a result of a Court settlement, the liquor distributors agreed
to make refunds based on the Court order. These refunds were to be made
1/5 each year for 5 years.
Famous Brands, Inc. has closed out its Minnesota operation and is offering
80% of the remaining funds which amounts to $529.92 for the Mound Liquor
Store.
Attached is a copy of Famous Brands letter and their check. Under the
circumstances of their leaving the State, it is felt that we should accept
the check.
A resolution from the Council is requested.
'~*;HOL E SAL £ R $ & DISTRIBUTORS OF SELEC'[
96:50 NEWTON AVE. SOUTH · BLOOMINGTON, MINN 5543!
PHONE 612-884-71
MLS NO1 MOUND
LIOUOR STORE
MOUND MINN 55364
RE- LIQUOR ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
DEAR CUSTOMER
AS INDICATED IN OOR PREVIOUS LETTER TO YOU, FAMOUS BRANDS HAS
TERMINATED BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA EFFECTIVE AUGUST 22, 1977. FOR
THAT REASON, BEFORE LEAVING THE STATE, F6MOUS BRANDS WISHES TO PAY
OFF ITS OBLIGATIONS TO YOLI UNDER THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION IN THE
SO-CALLED LIOUOR ANTITRUST CASES, THAT PLAN OF DISTRIBHTION CALLS
FOR FIVE ECL)UAL CASFI PAYMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. THREE OF
THOSE PAYMENTS REMAIN T() BE MADE. T(3 PAY OFF THIS ENTIRE OBLIGATION
NOW RATHER I'HAN MAKING PAYMENTS TO YOLJ OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS,
FAMOUS F',RANDS IS OFFERING YOtJ THE OPTION OF ACCEPTING A TOTAL CASH
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $529.92. THIS AMOLJNT IS EOLJAL TO gO PERCENT
OF THE TOTAL REMAINING PAYMENTS WHICH ARE TO BE MADE TO YOU IN THE
FUTURE UNDER THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION.
IF YOI.J DESIRE TO ACCEPT THF OPTION OF RECEIVING THIS CASH PAYMENT
NOW IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL A~OUNTS PAYABLE I,INDER THE PLAN OF
DISTRIBUTION, SIMPLY CASH THE ENCLOSE[) CHECK. (YOU WILl_ NOTE A RECEIPT
AN[) GENERAL RELEASE IS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE CHECK.) IF,, ON THE
OTHER HAND, YOU DESIRE T[') WAtT UNTIL THE FUTURE l'FI RECEIVE THE
PAYMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE PLAN QF DISTRIBUTION, RETt!RN THE ENCLOSED
CHECK WITHOUT CASHING IT TO FA~,~OI,JS P, RA-NDS, P.O. BF)X 20113,
g LOOM I I',tG 1' LIN ~, MINNESOTA.
VERY TRLJI_Y YOURS,
FAMOI.~S BRANDS INC.,
BERNARD SAMUELS
PR E S T DENT
09/01/77
RE - DISTRIRUT~ON OF SETTL. EN~NT PROCEEDS
IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL AMOUNTS PAYARLE UNDER
PLAN OF OISTRIRUTION APPROVED ~Y CONSENT ORDER
AND JUDGMENT DATED DECEMRER 23, 1974 IN THE
SO CALLED ANTI-TRUST CASES.
DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT
....................................... .,.o~ ...... 110841 582 80665
~50 N~?ON A¥~N~ SO,TN
BLOOMINGTON~ MINNESOTA 55431
I q/01/77
003256
-~52q
17-3
PAY
TO THE
ORDER
OF'
MIDLAND NATIONAL BANK
of Atlnneapoiis
110841 04
MLS NO1 MOUND
LIOUOR STORE
MOUND MINN
,' 0 0 3 25 &,'
~:Oq iO,,,O00
DATE. AHOUNT
VOID ,~ 9/01/77 ~524.q2
NOT CASHED
WITHIN 90 DAYS
~0,', 38,,, 38 ?,'
CITY OF MOU~D
Mound, Minnesota
September 9~ 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-282
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Hickory Lane-Rosedale Road No Parking
Presently the two subject streets are designated no parking. This was
done at the request of some of the residents.
Last week, Mr. Kotula requested the Council to investigate the problem.
Attached is a report from the Public Works Director outlining the history
of the no parking in the area and recommending that an ordinance be passed
making Pecan Lane "No Parking" (both sides) from Edgewater to the railroad
right-of-way.
ON LAKE MINNETONKA
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 5~364
INDIAN BiJRIAI. MOUNDB
ADDREAIII REPLY TO
September 8, 1977
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Kopp
Public Works Office
No Parking,Review, Hickory Lane, Rosedale Road
Hickory Lane, Rosedale Road and Pecan Lane were all made one way streets, the
reasons for doing this were, narrow 9ravel roads, steep incline on west end, and
a Tot Lot type park at about the center point of Rosedale Road on the north side.
Hickory Lane has. a fifteen foot right of way, no possible way to have safe parking
on either or both sides without encroching on private property. Ord. 364, 7/13/77
Rosedale Road has a twenty foot right of way, this road if improved should be an
absolute minimum for parkin9 on one side only. Ord. 3?4, lP/5/74
Pecan Lane is also a twenty foot right of way road. P~rking on any part of this
street is all but impossible due to the steep incline, and sharp curve and short
distance of traveled roadway from Rosedale Road to Edgewater Drive. This street is
not posted or covered by any ordinance.
Pecan Lane should be posted for No Parking both sides to keep the area~iform and
eliminate a possible future problem. Ordinance should read, No Parking/both sides
from Edgewater Drive, south to Railroad right of way. At the time that these roads
were made one way streets, Rosedale Road was ordered to be posted No l~arklng both
sides, after the Council received re~rts from the Police Department and the ~blic
Works Department, indicating that this was a workable solution and would add to the
safety of the roadway and not cause an inconvenience ~o the local residence.
Hickory Lane received the same treatment after the city received a letter from the
people who live on or their property abutted this street.
The above report ~s the result of one property owner on Hickory Len¢ that is not
s~t{sficd with the Mo P~rk~n9 ordinence, eleven other property owners in this arcs
are ~pp~rently smtis£ied.with the arrangement because we have not received any
complaints.
R~sp~ctfully,
Public Works Director
m /jcn
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-283
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
No Parking Ordinance - Bellaire Lane
Attached is a copy of a proposed ordinance removing parking from Bellaire
Lane's South side and 200 feet on the North side.
cc: R. Miner
Police
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SUBSECTION 50 TO SECTION
46.29 (b) OF THE CITY CODE, RESTRICTING PARKING
ON ALDER ROAD
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 46.29(b) of the City Code is amended to add Sub-
section 50 which shall read as follows:
50.
No parking on the south side of Alder Road
from Bellaire Lane easterly to Commerce
Boulevard and no parking on the north side
of Alder Road from Bellaire Lane easterly
200 feet.
Attest:
Mayor
City Clerk
Adopted by City Council
Published in Official Newspaper
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-284
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Deferred Assessments
Attached hereto is a proposed resolution which will allow persons over
65 years of age to defer special assessments on their property.
cc: Clerk-Treasurer
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF
HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted M.S.A. 435.193 to
435.195, which authorizes a city to defer the collection of special
assessments for homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age
or older for whom it would be a hardship to make payments, and
WHEREAS, the dity Council has determined that this law
should be implemented by the City of Mound for all special assessments
to be hereinafter levied by Mound, and that the City Attorney is
authorized and directed to ask for an opinion of the Attorney General
as to the legality of making this policy applicable for special assess-
ments which have been previously levied;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound:
1. Persons 65 years of age or older who reside on and own
homestead property may apply to defer special assessments levied by
the City of Mound.
2. Application for deferred assessments shall be on forms
prescribed by the County Auditor and such other information as is
determined necessary by the City Manager and City Clerk-Treasurer to
make their certifications as set forth in paragraph 3.
3. The City Council will approve deferred assessments for
property owners who reside in a household which has a gross income of
less than $10,001. The City Manager and City Clerk-Treasurer are
hereby authorized and directed to review income data and to certify to
this council that the property owner qualifies as a hardship case under
the aforementioned criteria. Income tax returns and other private data
may be reviewed by said city officers to determine that the property
qualifies for a deferred assessment but said income information shall
not be kept on file as a public record and said officials are directed
to protect the privacy of applicant's personal financial affairs.
4. After City Council approval of the application for a
deferral, the City Clerk-Treasurer shall file a notice with the County
Auditor thereof setting forth the amount of special assessments being
deferred. The County Auditor shall file a copy of said notice with
the County Recorder pursuant to M.S.A. 435.194. All special assess-
ments deferred under the provisions of M.S.A. 435.193 to 435.195 shall
bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the unpaid balance. The
notice to the County Auditor shall specify the interest rate and all
such interest and principal shall be collected when the deferred
assessment is payable under the provisions set forth hereafter in
paragraph 5.
5. The option to defer the payment of special assessments
shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus interest shall
become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse
is otherwise not eligible for the deferment. The surviving
spouse shall file a new application with the City Manager
and City Clerk-Treasurer. If the property is still eligible
for deferment, they shall so note in the city records and
the matter need not be referred to this council.
b. The sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or
any part thereof.
c. The property for any reason loses its homestead
status.
d. The City COuncil shall determine that there is no
hardship and shall require immediate or partial payment.
Attest:
Mayor
City Clerk
TIME RECORD
MOUND
PROSECUTIONS - August 1977
Date
8-3
8-9
8-12
8-12
8-16
8-16
8-18
8-23
8-25
8-29
Function
Interview with police
Draft complaint
Interview re complaint
Arraignment hearings
Prepare assault complaint & office conf.
Prepare damage to property complaint
Arraignment hearings
Pretrial hearing
Bad check complaints
Arraignments
Citizen interview
Prepare bankruptcy claim re check
Total .....
Time
:15
:30
:30
:45
1:10
:45
:45
:20
1:15
:45
:25
:30
7:55
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-166
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Bond Program
Attached is a copy of a letter from Ernie Clark relative to Moody's
reply to our letter about future financing.
BRANCIt OFFICES:
I.alolla, California 921}37
12110 Prospect Street Suite 150
{714] 459-26151
Chicago. Illinois f,0604
209 South La Salle Street. Suite 7011
13~21 34§-944{~
Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc.
NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER, 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55431
TOLL FREE MINNESOTA 800-862-6002 TEL. 612-831-1§00 TOLL FREE OTHER STATES 800-328:.6122
September 7, 1977
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Len:
I take it from Moody's letter they would look more favorably on a 5 year to
6 year street and storm sewer program than a 3 year plan.
We might get by with the shorter plan but I would hate to chance it. I would
suggest going with the $1,450,000 bond issue in early 1978, then play it by
ear after that.
Sincerely,
MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC.
Ernest L. Clark, Vice President
ELC:ps
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-167
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
McAthie vs. City of Mound
Council Memorandum No. 77-268 related the happenings on the subject
torrens case. (Pages 154 - 159)
The Council tabled this until the Attorney would be present.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-168
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Lot 7 and Part of Lot 8, Block 38, Wychwood
Councilman Swenson asked how many square feet were in the subject building
site.
Attached is a copy of a survey of the subject site; it is our calculation
that there is 6,700 square feet plus in the site.
F. C. JACKSON
LAND SURVEYOR
36~6 EAST 5~STH STREET PA. 4-4681
175-~1
Lot ? ar~ that part of Lot 8, Block 3B,Wyehwood,lYlng North of a. line.
described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 8;
thence Easterly 3?.36 feet to a point lO.O feet Northeasterly ar~ ~easured'-
at 'right at, les from the Southwesterly line of said Lot B; thence conti~ui~g
Easterly to a point in the East line of s~ld Lot 8 distant l§.O feet North of
the Southeasterly corner thereof, all in Henneptn County, Minnesota. ,.
Scc.24-117-24
----DAY 0~ Sept.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-169
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Levy Limits and State Aid
The State has given a definite figure on Levy Limits and State Aid.
Although our State Aid is up; our levy limit is less than 1977's.
Year Levy Limit State Aid Total
1977 435,062 163,154 $598,216.
1978 429,091 209,982 639,073
Difference (5,971) +46,828 +$40,857.
Our tax levy will be almost $6,000 less while new money available will only
be $40,857. A 6.8% increase over 1977.
!
0
/o'o P _
. CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesots
Page 1 Month
Monthly Activity Report of Water Dep~r~ment
i Work ~Inits Month Month to date to date
~o~ o~ w,~ cu~,~o.~ ........
Wate~ Cons~ed
~.~ -
~Hy~aq~s..Thawe~ ~t. T Mm~. Hours. ,
"" " "~ ~¢ ~/ ~ ~ //~
c~ ~o~ ~,~ia~ .....
Curb Boxes Lowered
, ,, ., , ,, ~ '~ ............
c~ o~ ~oam
Mound~ Minnesota
P~ge 2 Month of ~?~ ~? ~
Monthly Activity Report of Water Dt~rtment
-~ Wo?k Units Month ' Mont,,h ~ to dste ' to da
· . ~.~ ru= o~
:~ _~ts ~d~., Rzad~r~ Installed
~i~later Samples - Man Ho~s
L~C~
~....~.__.,~.... _-- - _ w.~-,_.~;, _-__.:? :.._-...:_ ........
ON LAKE MINN~D'I"ON~JI~ INDIAN BURIAL MOUNID8
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 September 6, 1977 (6~2) 472-1155
Mr. Ernest Clark
Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc.
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
Dear Ernie:
Attached is a copy of a letter we received from Moody's about our request
on whether we should finance the street program over 3 years or 5 years.
I would appreciate your comments and interpretations of their statements.
I interpret them to say "go slow". Do you get that same impression?
Si ncerely,
Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
LLK/ms
Encl.
cc:
City Council
Attorney
R. Mi ner
MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.
99 CHURCH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007 (212) 267-8800
September 1, 1977
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
We have received you letter requesting our comments on the
scheduling of street improvement and storm sewer project financing.
Moody's Investors Service does not provide financial counseling and
we are not in a position to advise you as to how you might schedule
your capital financing requirements.
In evaluating a credit, the Rating Committee looks closely at
the direct debt of a community as well as the burden of debt imposed
by overlapping taxing authorities. At the time of the city's last
bond sale in September, 1976, the city's direct debt burden was
moderate, but taking into account the overlapping taxing units, the
city's overall debt burden was relatively high. Continuation of
frequent issuance of debt by the city or overlapping taxing units
without accompanying growth in taxable resources could endanger the
city's credit rating.
Another consideration in debt analysis is payout of bonds. The
city of Mound's present debt structure provides for rapid amortization.
Generally, 25% of an issuer's debt should be amortized within five years
and 50%, within ten years. Of course, some financing requires longer
schedules over the life of a revenue-producing facility or improvement.
The city of Mound has grown rapidly and will continue to do so,
requiring more utility and street services. We hope that your will
continue to keep us informed on the city's progress.
Sincerely yours,
Municipal Research
FGL/cm
ON LAKE; MINNETONKA
534]. MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
September 8, 1977
INDIAN BURIAL MOUND~
TELEPHONE
(612) 472-3.155
Mr. Curtis A. Pearson
1100 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Subject: Cambridge Lane Closed
Dear Curt:
Attached is a copy of a map showing a portion of Cambridge Lane closed by
the Council. The people building a house on Lots 7 and 8, Block 38, Wych-
wood, are using Cambridge Lane for access to their garage. As a result,
they have built a retaining wall that extends into part of the street (see
Council Memorandum 77-270).
The Council discussed this on Tuesday night and some of the questions
asked of the Attorney are:
1. If the wall is allowed to stand, does the City give up rights to
the property (the street easement)?
2. There is either water or sewer in the street--maybe both. If a
main breaks or other maintenance is required, is the City responsi-
ble for replacing the wall?
3. If the wall is left, should the City get some sort of statement
from the builder that the ownership of the wall is the City's?
4. What type of action could the City take to make the present owner
and possibly his successors aware of the City's rights and his
responsibility in keeping the wall maintained?
Si ncerely,
Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
LLK/ms
Encl.
cc: City Council
ETON
16,
O'CONNOR & HAN NAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR, I DS TOWER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, I'41NNESOTA 5540~'
{61:>) 341-3800
TELEX
TELECOPIER 61;:' 341-3800 {5.,.56)
~91) Z~'B -1~'05 (303) 573-7737
August 31, 1977
City of Mound
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Mound Planning Commission
Mound City Hall
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re:
Jacobson -- City of Mound
Our File No. 11,301-001
Gentlemen:
Earlier this year Mrs. Jessie M. Jacobson (now known
as Jessie J. Ostenson) applied for several variances on
plat 62030, parcel 1020 which the City of Mound denied.
See Resolution No. 77-106. This letter is to inform you
that Mrs. Ostenson has entered into a contract for deed
with James E. Bedell and Sally A. Bedell, husband and wife,
to convey to the Bedells the.subject property. The Bedells
own the property immediately adjacent to the subject property.
Mrs. Ostenson's lot does not have the requisite 10,000 square
feet for a buildable site in a residential A neighborhood.
Section 22.02 of the Mound Ordinances voids deeds or
other instruments of. conveyance of any lot which describes
a lot of land less than the size, length or width as required
by the zoning ordinances. Section 22.03 of the Mound Ordinances
excepts a parcel of land less than the size, width and length
if such parcel is added to, combined with and becomes a park
bf an adjacent lot or area used for residential purposes so as
to 'inbrease the size of such adjacent tract or parcel of land
.... Because of this exception, Mrs. Ostenson does not
intend to apply for any variance under Mound Ordinance Section
22.04 to convey her substandard lot.
City of Mound
Mound Planning Commission
Page Two
August 31, 1977
If this analysis of the applicable Mound ordinances
does not conform to that held by the City, by the City Council,
the Mound Planning Commission, or any other City agency or body,
please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Jeremiah J. Kearney
JJK/lnh
cc:
Mrs. Jessie J. Ostenson
James E. Bedell
Curtis A. Pearson, Esq.
300 Metro Square Build~ng, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
James Solem, D,rector
Office of Local and Urban Affairs
State Planning Agency
Capitol Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
September 1, 1977
Ranking of 1977 Athletic Court Games Grant Applications
Metropolitan Council Referral Files No. 4628, 4646, 4652, 4655 - 58,
4663-6a, 4667, 4670- 73, 4676, 4679, 4680 A & B, 4685-88, 4693-97,
4698 A&B, 4699-4710, 4718 A-D, 4719, 4720-22, 4732-33, 4742-44.
Dear Mr. Solem:
At its meeting August 25, 1977, the Metropolitan Council considered the
above applications. This consideration was based on a report of the
Physical Development Committee, Referral Report No. 77-77. A copy of
this report is attached.
The Council adopted this repOrt as presented. The final recommended
ranking is a combination of the Metropohtan Council and State Planning
Agency ranking. The recommendations which were adopted by the Council
are as follows:
1. That the applications shown on Table C be accepted, see page
14 of the attached report.
That the applications for projects at Lake Nokomis and Baylor
Regional Parks and from Hopkins for platform tennis not be
accepted because of questionable eligib[!fty.
That a limit of one grant., two in the' case of one project
resulting in a grant under $4,000, be applied to communities
and projects outside of the Fully Developed Area.
An ~ency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Arem Comprising:
A_nok~ County O C~rver County O Dakota County O Hez~nepin County O lZmmsey County O Scott County O W~hington Cou=ty
James Solem
September 1,
Page Two
1977
That Table E be approved for funding as the priority ranking
of the athletic court games grant applications for 1977
construction season, see page 16 of the attached report.. . ........ /
~ c~c'copy-of-th~s, letter and portions of the Physical Development Committee
Report (Page 1 of staff report to the Parks and Open Space Commission,
Tables "A" thru "E'~ and Attachment "A" - "Project Evaluation Criteria")
are being sent to all applicants.
Sincerely,
JB:jg
Attachment
cc: Each applicant
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
John Boland
Chairman
Phyllis Hanson, MetropOlitan Council Staff
METROPOLITAN CouNCIL
~UIT~ ]OD [~TRO S~UAR~ BUItONi, SAINT PAuE, I'~INNSSQTA
5510!~
MSMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 10, 1977'
Metropo%itan Parks and Open Space Co~ission
Phyllis Hanson, Staff
Prioritization of 1977 Athletic Court Games Grant
Applications
I. Background
The 1977 Session of the Legislature passed the 0mnibus
Outdoor Recreation Act which included a grant program to
develop athletic court games. The progr~ included the
following conditions:
1. $650,000 for 1977 and 1978 to local units of governmen~
within the Metropolitan Area. Of this, $300,000 is de-
signated for 1977 applihations with the remainder for
for 1978 construction.
2. Grants are not to exceed 50% of the development costs.
3. The applications are to be revieWed in accurdance with
the'priorities establishe~ by the Metropolitan Council
and State Planning Agency.
State Planning Agency is to administer this. grant program
and award the grants.
The project reviews are to include the following factors:
a) financial resources available to t/%e Community, b)
cooperation beCween units of government, c) need, d) court
locations that encourage max{~ann use, patronage, and availa-
bility. The 'Council approved the criteria for project
review as shown in attachment A..
5. The projects ~hat are eligible are l~ited =o tennis,
basketball, volleyball, and handball.
6. Applications were due by 5:00 p.m. July 29, 1977 'for the
1977 constTuction season.
-2-
'5.
1. City of Andover - Kef, #4673
The City of Andover is requesting funds for the construction of two lighted ~ennis
courts at a location near the city hall. Total cos= of the project is $22,892.
The Anoka-Hennepin School District ~ll has endorsed the project and in=ends to
develop a comprehensive inst-ructional (~ennis) program based ac the proposed fa=il-
iCy.
The project ranked average in cooperatio~, need an~ financial resources.
2. Independent School District ~196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley) Ref. #4706 '
Independent School DisTrict ~196 (Rosemount) is requestin~ funds for ~he cons=ruc-
tion of a re=rea=ion facilit7, a basketball court and ~wo tennis courts, at the
Apple Valley Senior High School. Total cost of the facility is $25,700. The City
of Apple Valley will share equally the local share .lundinE cost with Independent
School District ~196.
The project is hi~hl7' ranked in cooperation between units of ~overnment.
3. Belle Plalne Public Schools - Ref. ~&679
Belle PlaLne Public Schools is request!n~ funds for the cons=ruction of ~o liEhted
tennis courts at a location off Marker Sc. in the CiTy of Belle Plaine. Total cost
of the factlit7 is $51,370. The City of Belle Plaine, the Belle Plaine Chamber of
Commerce and =he Belle Plaine Te--{~s Association will con~ribute to the construction
C05 t.
The project ~s highly ranke~ in all aspects of rev~e~.
4. City of Blaine- Ref. ~4709
The City of Blaine is requesting fun~s for the construction of two lighted tennis
courts at Terricorial Park. Total cosc of the project is $26,000. Officials of
two school districts, Ano~a-HennePfn Dist #ll and Sprint'Lake Park Di~t. ~16 have
expressed support for the facility.
The project was ranked average .in cooperatiou, financial resources, and m~xtmum
use accordinE to location.
City of Brooklyn Park- Rev. ~4657
The City . of Brooklyn Park is requestin~ funds for =he construction of Two tennis
courts a= Lakeland Park. Total cost of =he courts is $17,165. Independent School
District ~279 has. a Joint recreation program wi~h Brookly~ Park.
The project is above averase in nee4, financial resources,, and maximum use accordin~
co location.
6. City of Brooklyn Park - Kef. #465?
Funds for the consTr=ction of two tennis courts have been requested .by the Ci~7 of
Brooklyn Park. This term_is facility, to be lo=aced at Sunny Park, will cost
$17,165. Independent School Dis=tlc= ~279 has a join~ recreation pro,ram wi~h
Brooklyn Park.
The project is highly ranked in maximum use according co location, an~ above
averaEe in nee~, and financial resources.
7. City of Brooklyn Park - Kef. ~4657
-12-
TABLE A: REC.~EATION RANKING
1. Belle Plaine
2. Independent School District #279/y~ple Grove
3. Cencerville
4-5. Brooklyn Park-Norwood Park
Jordan
6, Maple Grove-Boundary Creek
7. Brooklyn Park-Sunny Park
S. Independent School District #832/Mah~omedi
9-I0. Chanhassen
Maple Grove-Donahue North
11-12. Cottage Grove
Frfdley-Woodcrest
13. Burnsville
14-15. Brooklyn Park-Ladd Park
New Brighton
16. Independent School District #719/Prior Lake
17-20. Fridley-Rober~ Louis Stevenson School
Maple Grove-Fish Lake Woods
Maple Grove-Kerber
Marine on St. Croix
21-22. Brooklyn Park-Hamilton Park
Shoreview
23-24. Minnetonka-Orchard
Shakopee
25-28. Brooklyn Park-Lakeland Park
Independent School District #196 (Rosemount)/Apple Valley
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board - Elliot
Minneapolis Park andRecreation Board - Waveland Triangle
29-30. Coon Rapids
St. Louis Park
31-36. Forest Lake
Maplewood-Afton Heights'
Maplewood-Maple Crest
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board - Powderhorn
St. Paul Park
South Sc. Paul
37-38. Columbia Heights - Prestamon Park
Eden Prairie-Birch Island
39-42. Andover
Eagan-Pilo~ Knob
Independent School District #83~Withrow (Hugo)
Spring Lake Park
431~1. Eagan-Rahn
Eden Prairie-Edenvale
Eden Prairie-Forest Hills
Gold~n~_Valle~plenview
z.-~olden Valley-S~[~'--
~ ~ Indemendent School Districc
~f~nnetonka-Oberlein
Roseville-Sandcastle
52-57. Blaine
58.
59.
60-64.
65-67.
68-69.
70~72.
Eden Prairie-Preserve
Golden Valley-Lions
New Germany
Oakdale
Rosedale-Howard Johnson
Columbia Heights- Huset Park
Golden Valley High School
Golden Valley-Brook~riew
Golden Valley-Medley Hills
Golden Valley-Wesley
Long Lake
Roseville-Pocahontas
Lake Elmo-Lions Park
Lake Elmo-Pebble Park
South Washington County Schools
Minnetonka-Covington
New Prague Community Schools
Independen~ School District #274/Hookins
Independent School Dis=ricc #284/Way~ata
Minnetonka-jUnc~ion
73. Eden Paririe-Flying Cloud
74. Savage
75. Eden Prairie-Prairie View
76. Eden Prairie-Round Lake
77,.ChamDlin-Clvde Andrew
TABLE B: HOUSING PEP~FORMANCE -13-
Top Ranked Communities_
Minneapolis
"-'--S~".-' Louis Park
Hopkins
Oakdale
Wayzata
Coon Rapids
Brooklyn Park
Shakopee
Map I ewo o d
Eden Prairie
Columbia Heights
Blaine
Forest Lake
Golden Valley
Eagan
Ro s evill e
Minne tonka
Hold Harmless Co,~.-~nities
Centerville
Marine on the St. Croix
Maple Plain
New Germany
Hugo
Lower Ranked Co~unities
Burnsville
St. Paul Park
New Brighton
Fridley
New Prague
Champlin
Shoreview
Lake Elmo
Cottage Grove
Apple Valley
Jordan
Spring Lake Park
Savage
M~ple Grove
Chanhassen
Belle Plaine
Long Lake
Mahtomedi
gndover
Prior Lake
-i4,
'TABLE C: RECREATION RANKING WI%~[ HOUSING PERFOP~M.4~NCE APPLIED
1. Brooklyn Park-Norwood Park
2. Brooklyn Park-Sunny Park
3. Brooklyn Park-Ladd Park
4. Cencerville
5. Minneapolis Park and Recreagion Board - W~veland Triangle
6. Minneapolis. Park and Recreation Board - Elliot Park
7. Brooklyn Pa~k-hamz£ton Park
8. Shakopee
9. St. Louis Park
10. Brooklyn Park-Lakeland Park
11. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board - Powderhorn
12. Coon Rapids
13. South St. Paul
14. Independent School DisCric~ #279/Maple Grove
15. Jordan
16. Belle Plaine
17. Bu.--nsville
18. Fridley-Woodcrest
19. Maple Grove-Boundary Creek
20. NeW Brighton
21. Maplewood-Afton Heights
22. Maplewood-Maple Crest
23. Co~age Grove
2&. Marine on St. Croix
25. Maple Grove-Donahue North
26. Minnetonka-Orchard
27. Independent School District #832/Mahtomedi
28. Chanhassen
29. Fridley-Robert Louis Stevenson
30. Forest Lake
~ependent School Di,$,trict ~277/Mira%etr~~_3
~33.--C~u~bia'Heights -Prestem'on Park
34. Shoreview
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Maple Grove-Fish Lake Woods
Maple Grove-Kerber
Independent School District #719/Prior Lake
Eden Prairie-Forst Hills
Eden Prairie-Edenvala
Independent School District #196/Apple Valley
Oakdale
Eagan-Pilot Knob
S~. Paul Park
Golden Valley-Glenview
Gotden Valley-Sheid
Independent School Discr~ct #834/Wtthrow (Hugo)
Eden Prairie-Preserve
Eagan-Rahn
Roseville-Sandcastle
Blaine
Minnetonka-Oberlein
Maple Plain
Golden Valley-Lions
Columbia Heights - Huset Park
Spring Lake Park
Roseville-Howard Johnson
Independent School District #274/Hopkins
Golden Valley High School
Independent School District #284/Wayzata
New Germany
Golden Valley-Medley Hills
Golden Valley-Brook-view
Golden Valley-Wesley
Andover
Roseville-Pocahontas
Eden Prairie-Flying Cloud
Eden Prairie-Prairie View
Eden Prairie-Round Lake
Minnetonka-Covington
SoUth Washington County Schools
Minnetonka-Junction
Lake Elmo-Pebble Park
Lake Elmo-Lions Park
New Prague Community Schools
Long Lake
Champlin-Clyde Andrew
Champlin-Mississippi Park
Savage
-15-
TABLE D. STATE PLANNING AGENCY R~NKING (Athletic Courts, 1977)
1. Eden Prairie (Forest Hill)
2. Shakopee
3. St. Louis Park
4. Independent School District #279 (Maple Grove)
5. Maplewood~ (Af~on Heights)
6. Savage,
7. Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud)
8. Belle Plaine
9. Fridley (Woodcrest Elementaz7 School)
10. Eden Prairie (Preserve Playground)
11. South St. Paul
12. Eden Prairie (Edenvale)
13. New Brighton
14. Brooklyn Park (Norwood)
15. Andover
16. Fridley (Robert L. Stevens%n)
o~ly~ Mark {Ladd) --
19. Chanhassen
20. Centerville
21. Eden Prairie (Prairie View)
22. Brooklyn Park CHm~%lton Park)
23. Marine on St. Croix
24. Brooklyn Park (Lakeland)
25. Jordan
26. Eagan (Pilot Knob)
27. Independent School District #834 (Hugo)
28. Brooklyn Park (Sunny Park)
29. Shoreview
30. Roseville (San4castle)
31. Roseville (Howard Johnson)
32. Roseville (Pocahontas)
33. Indepdendent School District #719 (Prior Lake)
34. Maple Grove (Boundary Creek)
35. Maplewood (Maple Crest)
36. Coon Rapids
37. Blaine (Territorial Park)
38. Maple Grove (Kerber)
39. Oakdale
40. Maple Grove (Donahue North)
41. Golden Valley (Glenview)
42. Golden Valley (Sheid)
43. Golden Valley (Lions)
44. Golden Valley (High School)
45. Golden Valley (Brookview)
46. Golden Valley (Medley Hills)
47. Golden Valley (Wesley)
48. Eden Prairie (Round Lake)
49. Independent School DisTrict ~198 (Apple Valley)
50. Maple Grove (Fish Lake Woods)
51. Lake Elmo (Lions Park)
52. Eagan (Rahn Elementary School)
53. Independent School District #284 (Wayzata)
54. Lake Elmo (Pebble Park)
55. Spring Lake Park (Terrace Park)
56. Minnetonka (Orchard)
57. Minnetonka (Oberlein)
58. Minnetonka (Covington)
59. Minnetonka (Junction)
60. Minneapolis Park and RecreaTion Board (Waveland)
61. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (Elliot)
62. Champlin (Andrews Park)
63. New Prague
64. New Germany
65 Long Lake
Forest Lake
Independent School District ~274 (Hopkins)
Independent School District #832 (~W~htomedi)
Eden Prairie (Birch Island)
Cottage Grove
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (Powderhorm)
St. Paul Park
Ghamplin (Point Park)
So. Washington County School (S~. Paul Park)
Columbia Heights (Prestomon Park)
Columgia Heights (Huse~ Park)
Burnsville
-I6-
TABLE E: FINAL KECOM~[ENDED RA~NKING/COM]~INATION METI{OPOLIT;~N COUNCIL & STATE PLANNING AGCY.
1. Brookly~ Park - Sunny Park -Ref. #4657 - $17,165
2. Shakopee - Kef. #4704 - $30,000
3. St. Louis. Park - Kef. #4721 - $22,000
4. South St. Paul - Kef. #4703 - $25,000
5. Maple Grove/Independent School Diskfit: #279 - Kef. #4685 - $20,000
6. Cen:ervflle - Kef. #4652 - $14,620 1
7. Belle Plaine - Kef. #4679 - $51,370
8. Maplewood-- Alton Heights - Kef. #4698A - $24,800
9. Fridley - Woodcrest - Kef. #4680A - $18,000
10. New Brighton -Ref. #4695 - $20,418
11. Eden Prairie - Forest Hills - Kef. #4699 - $11,100
12. Jordan - Kef. #4710 - $27,000
13. Coon Rapids -Ref. #4658 - $23,800
14. Marine on St. Croix - Kef. #4667 - $1~,000
15. Cha~e~__- Kef. #4696 - 35_~
i'7'. Minneapolis Park and Kecreacion Board - Waveland Triangle - Kef~ #4718B - $36,874
18. Minneapolis Park and Kecreation Board o Elliot - Kef. #4718A - $20,600
19. Shoreview - Kef. #4688 - $30,000
20. Eagan - Pilo~ Kno~ - Kef. #4664 - $27,375
21. Independent School District #719/Prior Lake - Kef. #4671 - $30,000
22. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board - Powderhorn - Kef. #4718D - $13,390
23. Burnsville - Kef. #4687 - $39,278
24. Independent School District #834/~ugo - Kef. #4742 - $47,000 1
25. Oakdale - Kef. #4720 - $26,000
26.. Roseville - Sandcastle/~oward Johnson - Kef. #4672 - $8,000
27. Independent School District #196/Apple Valley - Kef. #4706 - $25,700
28. Andover - Kef. #4673 - $22,892
29. Cottage Grove - Kef. #4656 - $13,800
30. Golden Valley - Glenview/Sheid -Ref. #4646 - $1~,310
31. Independent School Distict #832/Mahtomedi - Kef. #4733 - $20,000
32. Blaine - Kef. #4709 - $26,000
33. Forest Lake - Kef. #4676 - $43,000
34. Savage - Kef. #4700 - $24,560
35. Columbia Heights - Prestemon Park - Kef. #4702 - $9,280
36. Minnetonk~ - 0rchard/0berlein - Kef. #4744'- $7,600
37. Spring Lake Park - Kef. #4708 - $26,000
38~ St. Paul Park - Kef. #4655 - $18,280
39
4O
41
43
45
46
47
Independent School District #284/Wayzata - Kef. #4663 - $30,000
Independent School District #27~Rdpkins - Kef. #4628 - $19,500
New Germany - Kef. #4732 - $32,813
Lake'Elmo - Lions - Kef. #4670 - $15,500
Maple Plain - Kef. #4693 - $5,000
New Prague - Kef. #4697 - $22,250
Champlin - Andrews Park - Kef. #4719 - $15,000
Long Lake - Kef. #4686 - $15,950
South Washington County Schools - Kef. #4694 - $20,000
1
Cost estimates for these projects will be revised
-17- Attachment A
A. Projec= evilua=ion cri=erim
1. Project demons=re=es cooperatio~ be=ween uni=s of gove..--amen= 20
2. Need (1)
a. Developmen~ ~-ill sa=isf7 a deficiency in facility in existing
system. (Based on number of persons curren=ly served by
public cour=) 10
b. Developman~ will sa=isfy a deficiency in facili~7 distribution
in existing sys=em. (Based on distance from neares= 1Lke facility) 10
c. Project will sa=isfy a ~=~ure need.
3. Financial resou=ces available to communi~7
4. Maximum ~/se (2)
a. Development w-ill increase usage of a~ existing facili~%. 20_
b. New developmen~ ~-ill provide fo~ m~ patronage wi~h co~-
si~era~fo~ ~fve~ =o s~o~ loom=ions ~ lan~ use. 20
5. Availabilf~
a. Projec= is ~accessib~e by foo: and bicycle. 5
b. ProJec~ is accessible .by car · S
T0~ POSSIB~ POL~S 0F ~ ~PLI~TION 85
(I) Poin=s awarded for 2.a and/or 2.b. Points for 2.c are mutually
exclusive from ei~/xer 2.a or 2.b.
(2) Poin=s awarded for &.a or 4.b.
(3) A~i categories excep= 5.a and 5.b are based on a range of points from
zero to =he m~tmum shown. 5.a and 5.b will be awarded as 0 or 5.
LAKE MINNETONKA
DREDGING PROPOSAL
August 31, 1977
APPLICANTS:
OBJECTIVE:
BASIC
INFOR>~TION:
EXHIBITS:
Dr. James Hunder, 5501 Sherwood Dr., Mound, MN 472-4244
Michael D. Doshan, 5513 Sherwood Dr., Mound, MN 472-2897
We propose to dredge three specific areas referred to in
the attached exhibits. The areas of concern are as follows:
Submerged island of muck and weeds 32 feet from shore
line, between Hunder and Doshan docks. (See Exhibit C).
This island is about 36 feet north 'to south and 64 feet
east to west. The water level above the island is 2
feet or less. We propose to remove about 250 cubic yards
of muck to get a water depth of 4 feet.
Area to excavate is around Doshan's dock (east dock).
Again, the water is 2 feet or less and we wish to
excavate an area around the dock of about 35 feet by 35
feet. Removing about 130 cubic yards of muck to get a
water depth of 4 feet.
Area that is around the west dock (Hunder). We wish to
excavate an area of about 48 feet by 15 feet to a depth
of 4 feet. This would entail about 80 cubic yards of
muck. Also on the west side of Hunder's dock a red rock
retaining wall is proposed. It would extend about 30
feet west of dock on shore line. This would be necessary
to retain shore and prevent future erosion.
II.
Excavation around docks is proposed so the adjacent areas
can be used without damage to boats. Removal of submerged
island is also for safety in boating and to improve area in
general. Weeds and chunks of muck continually drift to shore
from island, making this an added problem.
The project would be completed by Bill Niccum - Westonka
Dock and Barge. Also we would like to complete project this
fall if possible.
This area was dredged before in August, 1971.
was P.A. No. 71-912 for Dr. James H. Hunder.
The permit
III.
A. Diagram showing broad perspective of area.
B. Diagram which depicts proposed rock placement.
C. Diagram showing areas to be dredged.
D. Diagram showing depth after.dredging.
1) photos of area
2) photos of area
3) photos of area
E. State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
permit application.
F. State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
permit application for Doshan.
G. State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
permit application for Hunder.
H. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District application for Doshan.
I. Minnehaha Creed Watershed District application for Hunder.
D ,. 7..,
( . :'; I .
W-221
Rev. 74
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES
D.ivision of Waters, Soils and Minerals
NOTIFICATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TIlE APPLICANT
Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.44, Subdivision 1, requires you to supply a complete copy
and all supporting data of your water permit application to the following:
A) The chief executive officer of the city or township within which
the project is located.
B) The secretary of the Board of Managers of the watershed district,
if any, within which your project is located or which your project
may affect.
You ~'~ST certify having served the complete application on the above in the box on the back
side of the application form W-S4.
.IN ADDITION, if your project is NOT located in a city, a complete copy and all supporting
data of the application should be submitted to the Administrator of the Shoreland Manage-
ment Program for the affected county.
Complete this form for each notice served on a local government official.
TO: A) Chief executive officer of the
city, ~7 township of ('pz~ pe name)
B) Secretary of the board of managers of the. ~%~ t~ watershed district.
C) Administrator of the shoreland management progr~ of .. ~~, county.
(Print or 'type name and address of applicant)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
This report from provides you an opportunity to submit input to the Department of Natural
Resources to assist in deciding whether to grant, modify, or deny the requested permit.
It is NOT absolutely necessary for local agencies to officially approve or disapprove the
project or make any recon~nendation, although this may be done if desired. It is requested
that local agencies indicate the following, as applicable:
A. The relationship of the proposed project to local plans for the
affected water and related land.
B. The relationship of the project to local land use controls including
flood plain and/or shoreland regulations.
(continued on reverse side)
Channet 1 in_~g
Total length (feet) ....... __
Length in lake/stream (feet)- - -
Bottom width (feet) .......
Side slopes (ratio) .......
Average depth (feet) .......
Existing
CONSTRUCTION DATA (also attach sketch or dv,rwtng)
Proposcd Alterations along shore
Distance along shore (feet) ......
Distance waterward (feet) .......
Thickness of fill material (feet)- - -
Gradient (g) ........... Depth of excavation (feet) ......
1. Describe type of excavation equipment to be used, if known:
2. Describe location (include map) and characteristics of spoil disposal site proposed:
w-S4
Proposed
3. Would maintenance excavation be necessary? (cheek) ~ YES ~ NO Explain:
4. Volume of material to be removed initially (cu~e yards): Muck or silt __~_0~ ~._~
Sand or gravel Rock or stone
ATTAC~X~NTS ~ $1S.00 filing fee, t~ photographs, ~other fspee~f~2 3~
Applicant declares that information submitted herewith and statements made herein are a true and correct
representation of the facts, and that the filing of this application and information with the
Commissioner of Natural Resources is prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof.
CO~WLETE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO:
(1).
Name of city or township
street & post office
Name of watershed di'st~ct
(3) Shoreland Management Administrator
of County
(applicant)
(lesbee)
Address
city IVlOu4.1 0 ,,,
State ~t F~M,
Zip code
AFFIDAVIT Phone
, 19 ~/~/ before me personnally appeared
'/" '
who being first duly sworn and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing
application, acknowledge[s) that executed the same as [~1 / own free act and deed and
that the statements, maps, plans, documents, and other supporting data are true and correct according
,. t .... % '6' L ./-t-,,.. ) .:'(-;'/'~).,. ~ ;:.:
Notary Public ;/
My ct,remission expires
19
to
best knowledge and belief.
County
W~ 54
Rev. 7,1
STATE OF ;.!INNESOTA
DEPARTbIENT of N.\fU/b\L RESOURCES
ivision of Naters, Soils & Minerals
APPI,IC^TtoN FOR P~RN[T T0 h'0RK IN PUBLIC 5rATERS
(pz~'~t bp t~pe appZ 'ca~t s
quarter section(s) , section(s)
(fire no., box no. or aS l es~)
county(les) '7/J.I"L% /,[,i , which is riparian to 5-{/'2 ,~.//~ ~'f /lift,St. lb
(n~ o~' Zake op strew)
applies pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 105 and other applicable statutes for a permit to work in the
public water(s) named above, in accordance with all data, m~ps, plans, and other information submitted
herewith and made a part hereof.
PROPOSAL
IT IS PROPOSED TO: .~ excavate, ~ fill, ~ construct, /--7 remove,
(check) ~ install, /~T7 abandon, or ~7 other(speoi£y)
TIlE FOLLOWING: ~ dam, ~ shore-protection, /'~ sboreline,~ harbor, ~ channel, ~ bridge,
(check) /--7 culvert, /---7 wharf, ~ obstruction, or Z_J other(speo{£y)
JUSTIFICATION
/,
Explain why this. project is needed:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1. Anticipated changes in water and related land resources:
2. Unavoidable but anticipated detrimental effects:
3. Alternatives to the action proposed:
PROJECT SITE DATA
1. Describe the type and am. ount of aquatic vegetaltion present:
2. Describe the nature of the material beneath the water:
3. Describe the na:ure of the upland are~:
4. Describe typo and amount of nearby shoreland development:
5. ENCI,OSE SKETCII DESCRIBING WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS.
(~ee in~tvuetiona)
(continued o~ re~epse side)
ATI'ACII EXTRA StlEETS IF NECESSARY
22.3
CONSTRUCTION DATA (also attach sketch or drawing)
w-54
Channelling Existing Proposed
Alterations along shore
Proposed
Tota[ length (J;:~¢t) .......
Length in lake/stream (feet)- - -__
Distance along shore (feet) ......
Bottom width (feet) .......
Distance waterward (feet) .......
Side slopes (ratio) .......
Average depth (feet) .......
Thickness of fill material (feet)- - -
Gradient (%) ...........
Depth of excavation (feet) ......
1. Describe type of excavation equipment to be used, if known:
2. Describe location (include ~) and characteristics of spoil disposal site proposed:
$. Would maintenance excavation b~ necessary? (check)
4. Volume of material to be removed initially (cubic yards): Muck or silt
YES ~y NO Explain:
Sand or gravel Rock or stone
Applicant declares that information submitted herewith and statements made herein are a true and correct
representation of the facts, and that the filing of this application and information with the
Commiissioner of Natural Resources is prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof.
{1} ~
Ne~ne of city or township Signe
street & post office _,
(2)
N~e of watershed district
(3) Shoreland Management Administrator
of County
State Y~ ~ Zip code
State of Minnesot~ )
L//~ ' s s. AFF I DAVIT Phone
£ounty of , .gL ~[[ K~¢.')~2 )
on this .2 day ~'f d~.~).~(' ,)bf,'L~.l i), 19 --/,-/ ...before me personnally appeared
who being first duly sworn and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing
application, acknowledge(s) that ~ ~_~ executed the same as" (..Z-/ own free act and deed ami
that the statements, maps, plans, documents, and other supporting data are brue and correct accordinR
tO
t .,) best knowledge and belief.
~ z(~:."- GREIG
DEBORA}I
I~ ~'~ ~ay Commissioa Expires Feb. 21. 1981
'7
Notary Public l/ County
My commission expires
19
I4INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
BOARD OF I'~NAGERS /
P. O. BOX 387 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
PERMIT APPLICATION - PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
DNR PA NO.
APPROVAL YES
DATE NO
DATE RECEIVED
DATE INSPECTED
APPLICANT NAME
ADDRESS
APPLIED TO [city, village,
PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
TEL. ~
DATE
BODY OF WATER
DESCRIBE WORK & OBJECTIVES
* For dredging permits describe proposed method of excavation
and erosion/siltation control and proposed location of spoil
disposal.
* For ground water withdrawal give number, location and depth
of proposed wells and estimated gallons annual use.
4. EARTHWORK DIMENSIONS (FEET)
5. EARTHWORK VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS)
-0i5 cu.. Ds.
6. ATTACH DRAWINGS SHOWING PRESENT CONDITIONS & PROPOSED CHANGES
All maps must show: ~-~C~ '
* scale
* government land lines and property boundaries
* topography (two-foot contour intervals) using sea level
* a plan of proposed improvements datum
* locations of soundings and soil borings
Cross sections must show:
* water and land prof/~e showing highest
· /~* s~il type~ ~,~
* n r" n s
SIGN~~~~, ~ '~ DATE
known water level
..;,,ti
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
P. O. BOX 387 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 56391
PERfqIT APPLICATION - PROPEt{TY I.~.iPROVEMENT
BOARD OP Y~ANAGERS
DNR PA NO.
A P P I(OVAL
DATE
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
APPLIED TO [city, village,
YES
NO
town
DATE RECEIVED
DATE INSPECTED
DATE
PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2. BODY OF WATER
DESCRIBE WORK & OBJECTIVES
* For dredging permits describe proposed method of excavation
and erosion/siltation control and proposed location of spoil
disposal.
* For ground water withdrawal give nu~er, location and depth
of proposed wells and estimated gallons annual use.
SIGNED
EARTHWORK DIMENSIONS (FEET)
EARTHWORK VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS)
ATTACH DRAWINGS SHOWING PRESENT CONDITIONS & PROPOSED CHANGES
must show:
*
* ~ove~ent ~a~ ~es a~ ~o~e~Ey bo~~es
* topography (two-~oot eonEou~ ~te~Zs) using se~ ZeveZ
DATE