4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

To: Lisa Berg, Hennepin County Attorney's Office From: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: June 18, 1999 Subject: 4300 Watertown Road - James Johnson Property - Response to Order and Memorandum of Judge Carey Dated May 27, 1999 Lisa,this is an update of my memo of July 31, 1998, responding to Judge Carey's recent Order and Memorandum. I hope some of this is helpful,and I would encourage you to discuss this matter with City Attorney Tom Barrett(334-2676) and perhaps someone from the League of Minnesota Cities to get additional perspectives on the general use of legal combination in zoning. New commentary since the 1998 memo is in bold italics. 1. The plat of Mark One was approved by the City Council of Orono in September, 1972 and filed at Hennepin County October 6, 1972. 2. The plat of Mark One consisted of 6 building lots and a road outlot. 3. The zoning of the property in 1972 was R-1C One Family Residential District, requiring a minimum lot area of 1.0 acre and a minimum lot width of 140' as measured at the rear of the required 35' front yard. Each building lot met these minimum requirements. 4. The zoning of this area of Orono was changed as of January 1, 1975 to RR-1A, Single Family Rural Residential requiring a minimum building lot size of 5.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 300' as measured at the rear of the required 100' front yard. 5. The status of existing lots of record from from 1-1-75 to 4-1-84 was governed by Orono Zoning Code Sections 31.200, 31.201, 31.202 and 31.203 (copy attached). In brief, an existing lot of record in a district requiring minimum lot size in excess of one acre could be utilized for single family purposes if the Council found that 1) it was at least one acre in area and at least 100' in width; 2) if it was served by sewer or meets all City septic system requirements; and 3) if it meets all standards of the City ordinances. The process for having the Council reach such a finding or conclusion was the variance process. Judge Carey states that "there is no dispute that the six lots involved do in fact meet these requirements". No information has ever been provided to show whether or not each of the 6 lots met the City's septic system requirements in 1977 or at any time before or after that date.We should,therefore,dispute this! Further,the proposed house location in 1977 would have had to meet a 100'setback from the private road outlot if all six lots were separate at the time of building permit issuance. It clearly did not meet a 100'setback, and we would not have issued that permit absent the combination, as noted in item 9 below. Therefore. we should dispute that all other conditions of the zoning code were met. When