all paperwork in file re: taking of property

Home Browse Search

' � Page 1 of 2 r Mike Gaffron From: Soren Mattick [SMattick@ck-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:22 AM To: Mike Gaffron; Ron Moorse Cc: Lyle Oman; Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Meinhardt Barn Status Mike, We would be in a better position to control the situation if they were applying for a lot line adjustment or minor subdivision. In either one of those scenarios we could control what was occurring on the property. As it stands, the nonconformity (at the least the most recent set of nonconformities) is being created by MNDOT's acquisition of the land. In my mind it doesn't matter whether MNDOT acquired the land through a negotiated purchase or through eminent domain —the property owner was forced to sell this land and didn't voluntarily create this situation. I believe the barn gets to stay. Soren -----Original Message----- From: Mike Gaffron [mailto:MGaffron@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:10 AM To: Ron Moorse Cc: Lyle Oman; Melanie Curtis; Soren Mattick Subject: Meinhardt Barn Status Ron — Upon MnDOT's removal of Ben MeinhardYs house at 3585 Sixth Avenue North, we will apparently be left with an oversize nonconforming accessory structure (barn)without a principal structure on a 2.4-acre lot that is perhaps 1.9 acres dry buildable in a 2-acre zone. The 2400 s.f. barn will be within 10'-15' of the right-of-way, in what would be the front yard, where a 50' minimum setback would be required. Technically, the 2.4 acre property would be allowed only a 1200 s.f. accessory building by code. Even if the neighbor to the east buys MeinhardYs property, or even if Meinhardt or his successors build a new home to the rear of the site, the barn will still be nonconforming as to location (it might be barely OK in size if the neighbor buys it and adds it to his property). The MnDOT triangle of land west of Meinhardt has been completely filled/excavated and no longer is viable for septic use. We don't know whether MeinhardYs remaining land is suitable for septic. MnDOT's acquisition ofjust the front portion of MeinhardYs property has created this situation. They have essentially created a new lot containing a large accessory structure in an undesirable, nonconforming location. Soren, do we have any legal standing to try to get the building moved/removed? Or, should we leave it alone (as a monument to progress...?!) ? It looks like the barn will be about 70' from the traveled roadway once the road is built. Is this an issue the Council should weigh in on? Looking for some direction before this becomes a big issue... See the 2004 airphoto attached. Mike Michael P. Gaffron 8/9/2007