4300 Watertown - Condemnation Hearing Info

Home Browse Search

• y '• • : "' ' ' _.4 OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY --- `•. I"AMY KLOBUCHAR COUNTY ATTORNEY r~ ORN•�, • June 29, 1999 The Honorable Thomas H. Carey Judge of Hennepin County District Court • C-1342 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Re: County of Hennepin v. H. William Lurton, et al., Parcel 29 • Dear Judge Carey: I write pursuant to Rule 115.11, Rules of Practice - District Courts, Civil Actions, to request this Court's permission to file a Motion to Reconsider the Order in this matter of May 27, 1999. This rule requires a threshold showing of "compelling circumstances" which do exist in • this matter. The Memorandum attached to the Order contains reasons for the Court's Order based on inaccurate information. This fact creates the compelling circumstance required by Rule 115.11 and the County requests rehearing or reconsideration based on that information. The County does not contest the fact that it has notice of the Orono City Ordinances. The • Orono Zoning Code Sections 31.200, 31.201, 31.202 and 31.203 covered the status of existing lots of record from January 1, 1975. This includes Section 31.203(3) which states, "it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances." This means that a lot must also meet the standards set out in Ordinance 172 which is the zoning ordinance adopted in 1974. • Under these sections, an existing lot of record in a one-acre minimum district could be used for single family purposes only if the Council found pursuant to a variance application 1) it was at least one acre in size and 100 feet in width; and 2) it was served by city sewer or met city septic system requirements; and 3) it met all other standards required by city ordinance • including zoning standards. This Court's Memorandum states that "there is no dispute that the six lots involved do in fact meet these requirements." This is not true. Respondent's house did not meet the 100 foot set- back requirement from the private road outlot if all the lots had been considered separately. • The city could not have issued the building permit received by Respondent if the lots had not been combined. The only way the City could have issued a permit for a residence in the location within Block 2, Lot 1 as proposed by Respondent in 1977 would have been 1) if a variance had been granted regarding lot area and setbacks; or 2) if enough lots were legally combined to form a five-acre lot yielding a house location meeting the setback requirements of • 100 feet in the front and rear and 50 feet on the sides. In fact,the city relied on Respondent's request for legal combination of all six lots and Outlot A to confirm that the building site met C-2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 53487 • PHONE: 612-348-3330 www.co.hennepin.mn.us/coatty/hcatty.htm Hr\\Ii PIC c„I .-I-v 1, s E(,i sI. Ov, ,RtI ' i _ :)?. 28 of 35