My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-22-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
06-22-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2020 11:19:11 AM
Creation date
12/1/2020 11:16:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 8, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 20 of 21 <br /> <br />Using the Hennepin County map, the owners of the lots were found. <br /> <br />Johnson stated the owner would have to do a lot combination. <br /> <br />Printup said they already have an agreement. He thinks that is the case because they dealt with the family <br />several years ago with a lot two blocks over and had a special agreement to have a dock in that location. <br /> <br />Rief asked if there was a lawsuit related to that area. <br /> <br />Crosby asked how it would look if the City vacated it. <br /> <br />Rief said the City would not vacate it. It is a parcel the City owns so it is a boundary line adjustment. <br /> <br />Walsh clarified that the City is just giving direction at this point. <br /> <br />Rief said it is administrative action. It is something the City owns so it had to come before the Council. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the City was going to adjust their lot so it is completely in the water. <br /> <br />Walsh noted all of the other lots are in the water, too. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the City would want the owner to do a lot combination at the highlighted area. <br /> <br />Walsh said the property being discussed is 1121. <br /> <br />Johnson clarified that it was a lot line adjustment for the lot at 1121. <br /> <br />Seals asked why the City would not do both. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated there is some legal expense involved in the lot line adjustment; there is a survey <br />requirement and legal descriptions. <br /> <br />Printup asked to take the issue to a Work Session. <br /> <br />Barnhart said normally City Staff handle boundary line adjustments administratively. The only <br />requirement is to provide a survey showing the change and the legal description before and after. The <br />property owner came forward with a proposal which involved the City so it was brought to the Council. <br />The reason why Staff is not taking an opportunity to clean up the others is because of the incurred <br />expense and that the other property owner has not indicated a desire to do so. <br /> <br />Walsh said he had no problem with the 1121 but the property owner should pay the expense, which <br />Council members agreed with. <br /> <br />Rief thanked the City Council for supporting the Police Department, especially because of the last couple <br />of weeks, and said he and the Police Chief appreciate their support. He said road construction projects are <br />in progress. Budgets will be discussed at the next Work Session. <br /> <br />CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.