Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Hanning Subdivision Possibilities
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 1, 1999 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: ^,,^�,s;\ Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron' .4 _ Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Hanning Right-of-Way Credit- Resolution List of Attachments A - Resolution (6- %B - Staff Memo of 10-21-99 On October 28 Council directed staff to draft appropriate documents by which the City would enter into a binding agreement with the Hannings in regards to future use of the right-of-way taken from their property for the County Road 6 upgrade. Specifically,such an agreement would allow the use of said right-of-way as area credit toward the 5-acre area requirement should the Hannings wish to subdivide in the future. The City Attorney has suggested that a `resolution of intent to enter into an agreement' is a logical first step toward resolving the litigation between Hennepin County and the Hannings regarding the value of the land taken for right-of-way. The City is an indirect party to this litigation since the City is responsible for half of the right-of-way acquisition costs,and therefore has a stake in the outcome. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review and adopt or amend/adopt the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4220 COUNTY ROAD 6 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed an upgrade of County State Aid Highway No. 6 (hereinafter "Co. Rd. 6") in Orono, which upgrade required the acquisition of additional right-of-way from property owners abutting Co. Rd. 6; and WHEREAS,Robert and Julie Hanning are the owners of the property located at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 ("the property")from which Hennepin County required the acquisition of approximately 23,300 s.f. or approximately 0.53 acres of land for road right-of-way; and WHEREAS,the Hannings in 1998 requested that the City Council allow the use of the right-of-way taken by the County as area credit towards the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement at the time of future subdivision of their property; and WHEREAS, the Hannings are in litigation with Hennepin County regarding the value of the property taken for right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has a financial interest in the outcome of said litigation because the City is required to pay half of the costs of acquisition of right-of-way for the Co. Rd. 6 upgrade project; and WHEREAS,the value of the land taken for right-of-way is influenced by how the taking impacts the ability of the property to be subdivided in the future; and WHEREAS, it was not the intent of the City of Orono to render the property no longer subdividable as a result of the taking, assuming that the property was subdividable prior to the taking; and Page 1 of 4 1 WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to enter into an agreement with the Hannings to allow use of the taken right-of-way as area credit for a future subdivision, subject to reasonable specified conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A,which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. Page 2 of 4 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less,the new lots would have 95%of their area outside the easement,and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot,as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right- of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. CONCLUSION, STATEMENT OF INTENT AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby declares its intent as follows: 1. The City Council intends to enter into a formal agreement with the Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns, which agreement will incorporate the following: a. A future subdivision of the property undertaken while the 5-acre minimum lot size is applicable to the property, shall be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes. b. The dry-buildable area creditable toward a future lot shall be an amount equal to the dry-buildable area of taken right-of-way that directly abuts said future lot and that lies directly between Co. Rd. 6 and said lot. 2. The intent of this agreement is that the property owners will be in no better and no worse of a position for accomplishing a reasonable subdivision of their property than they were prior to the right-of-way taking. Page 3 of 4 3. Nothing in this agreement will purport to grant,nor commit to granting,any variances to the Orono Zoning Code, except that the agreement will establish that the City will as a stipulation of settlement agreement grant a variance to Section 10.02.34 to allow the use of area dedicated as public road right-of-way toward the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement based on the findings noted above. 4. The agreement is predicated on settlement of the condemnation appeal action in a dollar amount acceptable to the City Council and Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 4 of 4 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER APPLETON,WISCONSIN p►� W�' SUITE 3100 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET MILWAUKEE,WISCONSIN BELLE VILLE,ILLINOIS �/� MUNSTER,INDIANA BROOKFIELD,WISCONSIN ^/00o MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 51402 PEORIA,ILLINOIS CHAMPAIGN,ILLINOIS PHOENIX,ARIZONA CHICAGO,ILLINOIS 0\\ 1. NO TELEFAX 612.334.8888612.333.3434 ROCKFORD,ILLINOIS CRYSTAL LAKE,ILLINOIS v ST.LOUIS,MISSOURI FT.JACK ONVL LE,FLORIDA ��`ALE,FLORIDA Ci? SA N CALIFORNIA SPRINGFIELD,ILLINOIS JOLIET,ILLINOIS TAMPA,FLORIDA LISLE,ILLINOIS WAUKEGAN,ILLINOIS MIAMI,FLORIDA Thomas J.Barrett Direct:612.3 34.2676 TBarrett@hinshawlaw.com July 19, 2000 Patrick J. Neaton Neaton& Puklich P.L.L.P. 445 Lake, Suite 333 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: City of Orono, Robert and Julie Hanning Our File No. 41288-755683 Dear Mr. Neaton: Enclosed please find my proposed changes to your draft. Please let me know your reaction. Very truly yours, &AAA:1r Thomas J. Barrett TJ,) Enclosure cc: Mike Gaffron HC26DS2/4707/2659583.v1 7/19/2000 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made an entered into this day of , 2000, by and between Robert C. Harming, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning, husband and wife ("Hannings") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipality("City"). WHEREAS, the Hannings have, at all times relevant hereto, been, and presently are, fee owners of certain real property lying and being within the City, identified as Parcel ID No. 31-118- 23-12-0015 (the"Subject Property"). WHEREAS,in 1998 the County of Hennepin commenced a condemnation action against the Hannings (as well as other property owners), for the ostensible purpose of acquiring, by eminent domain, real property for the purpose of upgrading CSAH No. 6 in the City (said condemnation action was filed as Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2485); WHEREAS, the Subject Property was referenced in the aforesaid condemnation action as "Parcel No. 18," and the legal description of the permanent and temporary easements that were acquired by the County of Hennepin,from the Subject Property,pursuant to and in accordance with the aforesaid condemnation action are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; WHEREAS, one of the significant disputes between the Hannings and the County of Hennepin in the aforesaid condemnation action was the question of what effect the eminent domain taking would have on the Hannings' subsequent ability to subdivide the Subject Property under the then pertaining ordinances of the City; HC26DS4/4707/26510121.v27/19/2000 WHEREAS, at the request of the County of Hennepin,the City adopted Resolution No.4405 on December 13, 1999 (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B), being a"Resolution of Intent to Enter into an Agreement"with the Hannings; WHEREAS the Cit ado•ted the Resolution in •art to limit .otential I a ent of a lar•er condemnation award; WHEREAS, the Hannings, in reliance on the aforesaid December 13, 1999 Resolution by the City, entered into a settlement of the condemnation proceeding with the County of Hennepin;and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into the Agreement that was contemplated in the City's aforesaid Resolution of December 13, 1999, upon the following terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Upon any request by the Hannings, or their heirs, successors or assigns, to subdivide the Subject Property, the City shall consider the Subject Property to include the area of permanent easement that the County of Hennepin acquired by eminent domain from the Hannings for highway purposes and for drainage purposes, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, so that the Subject Property, and any proposed subdivision thereof, will be considered by the City based upon the pre-taking dimensions and area of the Subject Property. • . • . - • . •1 • • . .UOU. , I •1 I •1 , . • • . •I. to, • . 1 •1 . • •, • . . • . , . . . .. .. • . I • ••.i • .. . • •. • • • . . •. _• • • I .. .. 1 •II , • • .A• • . • , . •1 • • V • 1 • • . .• 1 _ I • - I 3.2. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, as well as their respective heirs, successors, and assigns and shall run with the land comprising the Subject Property. HC26DS4/4707/26510121.v2 7/19/2000 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first set forth above. Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Julie S. Hanning CITY OF ORONO By: Its: By: Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2000, by Robert C. Hanning and Julie S. Hanning, husband and wife. Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2000, by and , its and for and on behalf of the City of Orono. Notary Public HC26DS4/4707/26510121.12 7/19/2000 3 Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No. Project No. 9444) Abstract Property Page 1 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 A permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Lot 1, Block 1, WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof; which lies southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 51.67 feet (15.750 meters)northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence run southerly along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East for a distance of 615.80 feet (187.697 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 492.13 feet (150.000 meters)to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds West for 655.27 feet (199.726) meters)to a point on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 951.44 feet (290.000 meters), thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 328.08 feet (100.000 meters) and said line there terminating. Also a permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of Lot 1, Block 1, WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof; which lies within 10.00 feet (3.048 meters) on each side of the following described line: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence run northeasterly along the southeasterly line thereof for a distance of 101.38 feet (30.902 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described;thence North 25 degrees 37 minutes 46 seconds West for 36.57 feet(11.146 meters)based on the assumption that the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East and said line there terminating. Also a temporary easement for construction purposes over all that part ofLot 1,Block 1,WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1;thence run northwesterly along the southwesterly line thereof for a distance of 34.01 feet (10.365 meters); thence North 13 degrees 31 minutes 21 seconds West for 33.46 feet(10.200 meters);thence North 71 degrees 43 minutes 25 seconds East for 18.76 feet(5.717 meters); thence South 44 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds East for 36.57 feet(11.147 meters); thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 28 seconds East for 75.41 feet(22.985 meters);thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 05 seconds East for 56.95 feet(17.359 meters);thence North 68 degrees 13 minutes 11 seconds East for 49.66 feet(15.135 meters);thence South 21 degrees 40 minutes 11 seconds East for 3.71 feet (1.132 meters); thence HC26DS4/4707/26510121.v2 7/19/2000 EXHIBIT A Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No. Project No. 9444)Abstract Property Page 2 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 North 71 degrees 57 minutes 09 seconds East for 43.42 feet(13.234 meters);thence North 48 degrees 30 minutes 39 seconds East for 35.27 feet(10.751 meters);thence South 44 degrees 28 minutes 57 seconds East for 15.67 feet (4.775 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 82.09 feet(25.022 meters);thence North 4 degrees 54 minutes 14 seconds West for 12.01 feet(3.661 meters); thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 15 seconds East for 21.40 feet(6.523 meters); thence South 83 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds East for 17.33 feet(5.283 meters); thence South 6 degrees 46 minutes 27 seconds East for 23.00 feet (7.011 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 59 seconds East for 43.73 feet(13.329 meters);thence North 31 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds East for 7.00 feet (2.134 meters); thence North 10 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds West for 21.35 feet(6.507 meters);thence North 74 degrees 13 minutes 54 seconds East for 14.58 feet(4.445 meters);thence South 18 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds East for 25.12 feet(7.656 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 48 seconds East for 48.75 feet(14.860 meters);thence North 26 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East for 7.41 feet (2.257 meters); thence North 74 degrees 15 minutes 21 seconds East for 59.69 feet(18.195 meters);thence South 64 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds East for 4.10 feet (1.251 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 182.62 feet(55.662 meters);thence North 48 degrees 29 minutes 32 seconds East for 41.25 feet(12.572 meters);thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 34 seconds East for 15.06 feet(4.589 meters)more or less to the easterly line of said Lot 1; thence southerly along said easterly line to the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 1;thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line thereof to the point of beginning. Said temporary construction easement to expire July 31, 1999. Names of parties interested in said land and nature of interest. Name Nature of Interest Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Fee Julie S. Hanning Fee City of Orono Assessments County of Hennepin Tax Lien HC26DS4/4707/26510121.v2 7/19/2000 EXHIBIT A ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 1999 (#15) COUNCIL LIAISON TO PARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IN 2000 Flint said he will not be available to attend the Park Commission meeting on March 6 or the Planning Commission meeting on February 23. He asked if any of the Council members would want to trade dates with him. Sansevere said he would attend the March 6 Park Commission instead of the May 1 meeting. Jabbour said he would attend the February 23 Planning Commission meeting instead of the June 19 meeting. (#16) DECLARATION OF LOCAL JURISDICTION RE: ISTS Kelley recommended that his matter be discussed at the January meeting. Jabbour moved,Flint seconded,to table Declaration of Local Jurisdiction RE: ISTS until the January meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#17) FORMAL OPENING OF NORTH ARM LANE AS PUBLIC ROAD-RESOLUTION NO. 4404 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4404 Declaring North Arm Lane Open as a Public Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) 4220 WATERTOWN ROAD - RIGHT-OF-WAY BUILDABILITY CREDIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4405 Gaflron noted that the correct address is 4220 County Road 6. On October 28 Council directed staff to draft appropriate documents by which the City would enter into a binding agreement with the Hannings in regards to future area credit for the right-of-way taken from their property for the County Road 6 upgrade. Specifically, such an agreement would allow the use of said right-of-way as area credit toward the 5-acre requirement should the Hannings wish to subdivide in the future. Gaffron said the City Attorney has suggested that a"resolution of intent to enter into an agreement" is a logical first step toward resolving the litigation between Hennepin County and the Hannings regarding the value of the land taken for right-of-way. Jabbour said he didn't think the Council could bind future councils to this type of agreement. Barrett said he is not sure what the fmal form of this agreement will be, but the City is trying to give them some indication that it is amenable. Sansevere moved,Kelly seconded,to approve and adopt Resolution No.4405,a Resolution of Intent to Enter into an Agreement with the Owners of Property Located at 4220 County Road 6. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. HC26DS4/4707/26510121N2 7/19/2000 EXHIBIT B PATRICK J. NEATON NEATON & PUKLICH P.L.L.P. LORI B. NOLAN ST.AUBIN MICHAEL L. PUKLICH Attorneys at Law Legal Assistant 445 Lake,Suite 333 Wayzata,Minnesota 55391 612/473-8444 • Fax 612/473-3501 neaton-puklich.com June 26, 2000 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 ATTN: Mike Gaffron RE: Robert and Julie Henning Dear Mr. Gaffron: As you are probably aware, I am the attorney for Robert and Julie Hanning, in connection with the eminent domain proceeding that the County of Hennepin instituted against the Hannings, and their property, for the upgrading of CSAH No. 6. We settled this case in January 2000, with the County of Hennepin, after the County provided us with a copy of the City of Orono's Resolution 4405, dated December 13, 1999, to the effect that the City would enter into a binding agreement with the Hannings that would credit the Hannings for any right of way taken from the subject eminent domain proceeding, in the event that the Hannings wished to subdivide their property in the future. In the interim since the settlement, I have been attempting to obtain that agreement through the Offices of the Hennepin County Attorney--but without any success. Accordingly, I have prepared, and am enclosing herewith, a proposed Agreement to effectuate the aforesaid Resolution. If the Agreement is satisfactory, I request that it be executed, in duplicate, by the appropriate representatives of the City, and forwarded directly to the Hannings, whereupon they will sign the Agreement and return one fully executed copy to the City of Orono. Yours very truly, 111, P. eaton PJN:ln Encl. Cc: Thomas J. Radio Lisa A. Berg Robert & Julie Hanning AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between Robert C. Hanning, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning, husband and wife ("Hannings") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipality("City"). WHEREAS, the Hannings have, at all times relevant hereto, been, and presently are, fee owners of certain real property lying and being within the City, identified as Parcel ID No. 31- 118-23-12-0015 (the "Subject Property"). WHEREAS, in 1998 the County of Hennepin commenced a condemnation action against the Hannings (as well as other area property owners), for the ostensible purpose of acquiring, by eminent domain, real property for the purpose of upgrading CSAH No. 6 in the City (said condemnation action was filed as Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2485); WHEREAS, the Subject Property was referenced in the aforesaid condemnation action as "Parcel No. 18," and the legal description of the permanent and temporary easements that were acquired by the County of Hennepin, from the Subject Property, pursuant to and in accordance with the aforesaid condemnation action are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; WHEREAS, one of the significant disputes between the Hannings and the County of Hennepin in the aforesaid condemnation action was the question of what effect the eminent domain taking would have on the Hannings' subsequent ability to subdivide the Subject Property under the then pertaining ordinances of the City; WHEREAS, at the request of the County of Hennepin, the City adopted Resolution No. 4405 on December 13, 1999 (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B), being a "Resolution of Intent to Enter into an Agreement" with the Hannings; WHEREAS, the Hannings, in reliance on the aforesaid December 13, 1999 Resolution by the City, entered into a settlement of the condemnation proceeding with the County of Hennepin; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into the Agreement that was contemplated in the City's aforesaid Resolution of December 13, 1999, upon the following terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Upon any request by the Hannings, or their heirs, successors or assigns, to subdivide the Subject Property, the City shall consider the Subject Property to include the area of permanent easement that the County of Hennepin acquired by eminent domain from the Hannings for highway purposes and for drainage purposes, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, so that the Subject Property, and any proposed subdivision thereof, will be considered by the City based upon the pre-taking dimensions and area of the Subject Property. 2. In the event that it becomes necessary for the Hannings, their heirs, successors or assigns, to retain an attorney, commence a lawsuit, or undertake any other legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the City shall be obligated to reimburse the Hannings for their reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys fees incurred in enforcing the terms of the Agreement. 3. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, as well as their 2 respective heirs, successors, and assigns and shall run with the land comprising the Subject Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first set forth above. Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Julie S. Hanning CITY OF ORONO BY: Its: BY: Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000 by Robert C. Hanning and Julie C. Hanning, husband and wife. Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000 by and , its and for and on behalf of the City of Orono. Notary Public 3 Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No. J, Project No. 9444) Abstract Prope, .1 Page 1 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 A permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Lot 1 , Block 1 , WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, which lies southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 51 .67 feet (15.750 meters) northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence run southerly along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East for a distance of 615.80 feet (187.697 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 492.13 feet (150.000 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds West for 655.27 feet (199.726 meters) to a point on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 95,1 .44 feet (290.000 meters), thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 328.08 feet (100.000 meters) and said line there terminating. Also a permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of Lot 1 , Block 1 , WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, which lies within 10.00 feet (3.048 meters) on each side of the following described line: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1 ; thence run northeasterly along the southeasterly line thereof for a distance of 101 .38 feet ' 30.902 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 25 degrees 37 minutes 46 seconds West for 36.57 feet (11 .146 meters) based on the assumption that the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East and said line there terminating. Also a temporary easement for construction purposes over all that part of Lot 1 , Block 1 , WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1 ; thence run northwesterly along the southwesterly line thereof for a distance of 34.01 feet (10.365 meters); thence North 13 degrees 31 minutes 21 seconds West for 33.46 feet (10.200 meters); thence North 71 degrees 43 minutes 25 seconds East for 18.76 feet (5.717 meters); thence South 44 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds East for 36.57 feet (11 .147 meters); thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 28 seconds East for 75.41 feet (22.985 meters); thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 05 seconds East for 56.95 feet (17.359 meters); thence North 68 degrees 13 minutes 11 seconds East for 49.66 feet (15.135 meters); thence South 21 degrees 40 minutes 11 seconds East for 3.71 feet (1 .132 meters); thence North 71 degrees 57 minutes 09 seconds East for 43.42 feet (13.234 meters); thence North 48 degrees 30 minutes 39 seconds East for 35.27 feet (10.751 meters); thence South 44 degrees 28 minutes 57 seconds East for 15.67 feet (4.775 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 82.09 feet (25.022 meters); thence North 4 degrees 54 minutes 14 seconds West for 12.01 feet (3.661 meters); thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 15 second East for 21 .40 feet (6.523 meters); thence South 83 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds East for 17.33 feet (5.283 meters); thence South 6 Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No. , Project No. 9444) Abstract ProperLyr Page 2 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 degrees 46 minutes 27 seconds East for 23.00 feet (7.011 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 59 seconds East for 43.73 feet (13.329 meters); thence North 31 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds East for 7.00 feet (2.134 meters); thence North 10 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds West for 21 .35 feet (6.507 meters); thence North 74 degrees 13 minutes 54 seconds East for 14.58 feet (4.445 meters); thence South 18 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds East for 25.12 feet (7.656 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 48 seconds East for 48.75 feet (14.860 meters); thence North 26 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East for 7.41 feet (2.257 meters); thence North 74 degrees 15 minutes 21 seconds East for 59.69 feet (18.195 meters); thence South 64 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds East for 4.10 feet (1 .251 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 182.62 feet (55.662 meters); thence North 48 degrees 29 minutes 32 seconds East for 41 .25 feet (12.572 meters); thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 34 seconds East for 15.06 feet (4.589 meters) more or less to the easterly line of said Lot 1; thence southerly along said easterly line to the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line thereof to the point of beginning. Said temporary construction easement to expire July 31, 1999. Names of parties interested in said land and nature of interest. Name Nature of Interest • Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Fee Julie S. Hanning Fee City of Orono Assessments County of Hennepin Tax Lien 'RONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING L.LINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13, 19' (#15) COUNCIL LIAISON TO PARK COMI\iIISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IN 2000 Flint said he will not be available to attend the Park Commission meeting on March 6 or the Planning Commission meeting on February 23. He asked if any of the Council members would want to trade dates with him. Sansevere said he would attend the March 6 Park Commission instead of the May 1 meeting. Jabbour said he would attend the February 23 Planning Commission meeting instead of the June 19 meeting. (#16) DECLARATION OF LOCAL JURISDICTION RE: ISTS Kelley recommended that his matter be discussed at the January meeting. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to table Declaration of Local Jurisdiction RE: ISTS until the January meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#17) FORMAL OPENING OF NORTH ARM LANE AS PUBLIC ROAD - RESOLUTION NO. 4404 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4404 Declaring North Arm Lane Open as a Public Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (#18) 4220 WATERTOWN ROAD - RIGHT-OF-WAY BUILDABILITY CREDIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4405 Gaffron noted that the correct address is 4220 County Road 6. On October 28 Council directed staff to draft appropriate documents by which the City would enter into a binding agreement with the Hannings in regards to future area credit for the right-of-way taken from their property for the County Road 6 upgrade. Specifically, such an agreement would allow the use of said right-of-way as area credit toward the 5-acre area requirement should the Hannings wish to subdivide in the future. Gaffron said the City Attorney has suggested that a"resolution of intent to enter into an agreement" is a logical first step toward resolving the litigation between Hennepin County and the Hannings regarding the value of the land taken for right-of-way. Jabbour said he didn't think the Council could bind future councils to this type of agreement. Barrett said he is not sure what the final form of this agreement will be, but the City is trying to give them some indication that it is amenable. Sansevere moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4405, a Resolution of Intent to Enter into an Agreement with the Owners of Property Located at 4220 County Road 6. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 36 'p1N CO ? 'Gtia OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY --4-A...1AMY KLOBUCHAR COUNTY ATTORNEY 9TORN‘k May 31, 2000 tJiSi`4 0 2 no CITY OF ch=i0 0 Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Hennepin County v. H. William Lurton, et al. Court File CD-2485, Parcel No. 18 Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed please find a copy of the Stipulation between the parties and the Order for Judgment and Dismissal of Appeal regarding this parcel. I hope this satisfies the Hannings and Mr. Neaton that Orono will respect its own City Council Resolution should they ever want to subdivide their land. Thank you for all your time and attention to this matter as well as the others that we worked on for the improvement of CSAH 6. I learned an enormous amount from you and could not have asked for a more pleasant expert on City matters. Thanks. Sincerely, AMY KLOBUCHAR Hennepin County Attorney LISA A. BERG Assistant County Attorney Telephone: (612) 348-8574 FAX: (612) 348-8299 LAB Enclosures C-2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55487 PHONE: 612-348-5550 wwwco.hennepin.mn.us/coatty/hcatty.htm HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CONDEMNATION STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The County of Hennepin, ) ) Petitioner, ) STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT AND ) DISMISSAL OF APPEAL AND CROSS- vs. ) APPEAL H. William Lurton, et al., ) Cond. No. CD-2485 ) Parcel No. 18 Robert C. Hanning, Jr. and Julie ) C.A. File No. 98-0063 S. Hanning, ) Respondents. ) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Petitioner, the County of Hennepin, upon approval of its Board, and Robert C. Hanning, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning, Respondent/owners as to Parcel No. 18, and their respective counsel, as follows: 1. The appeal of Petitioner and Respondents, Robert C. Hanning, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning, and the Cross-Appeal of the County of Hennepin from the award in the Report of Commissioners filed November 24, 1998 in the sum of Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars ($38,158.00) as to Parcel No. 18 in these proceedings are hereby settled and compromised for the total gross sum of Fifty five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00). The appeals are dismissed with prejudice, and each party shall pay their own costs and disbursements and no costs or disbursements shall be taxed. EXHIBIT A 2. The Petitioner shall pay the sum of Fifty Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000.00) to Respondents in full and complete settlement of the Petition herein. 3. The Petitioner previously paid Twenty Four Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($24,300.00) on April 13, 1998, by deposit pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 in favor of and on account of the owners. Respondent/owners withdrew that deposit from the Hennepin County District Court account.t The total amount owing to Respondents from Hennepin Countyis Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred ($30,700.00) Dollars which will be paid by Hennepin County to Respondents upon receipt of this signed Stipulation. 4. The terms and conditions,d tions, if any, of the Award of Commissioners as to the parcel shall remain in full force and effect. 5. In consideration of the payment of the-aforesaid sum, the undersigned agree that payment and acceptance shall constitute full accord and satisfaction of any and all claims for damages and interest, past, present and future, of any kind or nature occasioned by the taking of the tract known as Parcel No. 18 intend forever to settle any and all claims regarding the taking of that parcel. 6. This Stipulation shall be considered as a substitute for the Award made as to Parcel 18. Anyfurther proceedings maybe had as though no appeals had been P g taken. 9 PP AMY KLOBUCHAR Hennepin County Attorney By: � • � PAT . EATON LISA A. BERG (120807) Attorney for Respondents, Robert C. Assistant County Attorney Hanning, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning Attorneys for County of Hennepin 445 Lake, Suite 333 A-2000 Government Center Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55487 Telephone: (612) 473-8444 Telephone: (612) 348-8574 2 C Fax: (612) 473-3501 Fax: (612) 348-8299 Dated: /'s v�d0� Dated: 2-' + 4'. ' 0 o Mairobi\caxxteam\Division\Civil\FORMS\Condemn\5-STIP-for-Settlemt-&-Dism-of-Appeal.doc 3 7 0.- 4,- .s t,,,, CITY of ORONO . '10441' �Gti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9kES�I04 NO. O 5 -0, A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4220 COUNTY ROAD 6 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and . WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed an upgrade of County State Aid Highway No. 6 (hereinafter "Co. Rd. 6") in Orono, which upgrade required the acquisition of additional right-of-way from property owners abutting Co. Rd. 6; and WHEREAS,Robert and Julie Hanning are the owners of the property located at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 ("the property") from which Hennepin County required the acquisition of approximately 23,300 s.f. or approximately 0.53 acres of land for road right-of-way; and WHEREAS,the Hannings in 1998 requested that the City Council allow the use of the right-of-way taken by the County as area credit towards the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement at the time of future subdivision of their property; and WHEREAS, the Hannings are in litigation with Hennepin County regarding the value of the property taken for right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has a financial interest in the outcome of said litigation because the City is required to pay half of the costs of acquisition of right-of-way for the Co. Rd. 6 upgrade project; and WHEREAS,the value of the land taken for right-of-way is influenced by how the taking impacts the ability of the property to be subdivided in the future; and WHEREAS, it was not the intent of the City of Orono to render the property no longer subdividable as a result of the taking, assuming that the property was subdividable prior to the taking; and Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT B • ,J ,�✓ CITY of ORONO + �'I� �,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �`9$Ei i4.0V" NO. ca 05 S WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to enter into an agreement with the Hannings to allow use of the taken right-of-way as area credit for a future subdivision, subject to reasonable specified conditions. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A,which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. Page 2 of 4 (70 .4 O L. CITY of ORONO + i��, G'? RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9kE3HO�� N0. 4 `' 0 t 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less, the new lots would have 95%of their area outside the easement, and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each • 5-acre lot,as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right- of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. CONCLUSION, STATEMENT OF INTENT AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby declares its intent as follows: 1. The City Council intends to enter into a formal agreement with the Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns, which agreement will incorporate the following: a. A future subdivision of the property undertaken while the 5-acre minimum lot size is applicable to the property, shall be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes. b. The dry-buildable area creditable toward a future lot shall be an amount equal to the dry-buildable area of taken right-of-way that directly abuts said future lot and that lies directly between Co. Rd. 6 and said lot. 2. The intent of this agreement is that the property owners will be in no better and no worse of a position for accomplishing a reasonable subdivision of their property than they were prior to the right-of-way taking. Page 3 of 4 ( l ii O O 1 1�,� CITY of ORONO . jA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �4 tills 4G u 1-1- 0 5 kESHO4' N0. 3. Nothing in this agreement will purport to grant,nor commit to granting,any variances to the Orono Zoning Code, except that the agreement will establish that the City will as a stipulation of settlement agreement grant a variance to Section 10.02.34 to allow the use of area dedicated as public road right-of-way toward the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement based on the findings noted above. 4. The agreement is predicated on settlement of the condemnation appeal action in a dollar amount acceptable to the City Council and Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: ,z,- 71 &4,_..c2-- �\ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabrie Jabbour, Mayor Page 4 of 4 CONDE STATE OF MINNESOTA r., , DIST URT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN `' ''' ` ' ` " FOl'J1TH JUDICIA !STRICT 4 The County of Hennepin, �: ; ) Petitioner, ) ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AND ., . vs. ) DISMISSAL OF APPEAL ) AS TO PARCEL NO. 18 H William Lurton, et al., ) Robert C. Hanning and Julie S. ) Cond. No. 2485 Hanning, ) C.A. File No. 98-0063 Respondents. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES THE COURT FINDS: 1. In 1998, Petitioner commenced an eminent domain proceeding for the condemnation of property known as Parcel No. 18 (hereinafter "the property"), described in the Petition on file herein. 2. Petitioner and Respondents have executed a Stipulation and Dismissal of Appeal which incorporated the above agreed-upon issues attached hereto as Exhibit A.. 3. The total gross amount paid by Petitioner to Respondents for Parcel No. 18 is Fifty Five Thousand ($55,000.00) Dollars, includes but is not limited to the amount of damages awarded to Respondents, relocation costs and interest. Each party is to bear its own costs and disbursements related to this condemnation proceeding. On March 24, 2000, Petitioner received a letter from Patrick Neaton, attorney for respondents, acknowledging receipt of the check in the amount of Fifty Five Thousand ($55,000.00) Dollars). 4. Additionally, the City of Orono adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council "A Resolution of Intent to Enter into an Agreement With the Owners of Property Located at 4220 County Road 6", Resolution No. 4405 dated the 13th day of December, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. The parties waive their right to further hearings or right of appeal. 6. Payment of the agreed sum and acceptance of it constitutes plus the adoption of Resolution No. 4405 by the Orono City Council operate as full accord and satisfaction of all claims for damages and interest, past, present and future, of any kind or nature occasioned by the taking of Parcel No. 18. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the matter is hereby resolved according to the attached Stipulation and Resolution of the Orono City Council No. 4405. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Recorder may accept a certified copy of this Order for Judgment and Dismissal of Appeal for filing and recording. BYT 0OUR Th• ash .rey } JUDGE OF DISTRICT C t URT Dated: 2 Cl of Orono ' 1.;\:;j 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 249-4600 Fax: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: 3 9 'X To: 1.;I"ek €404-4442-f571- Fax: 3 3 ' 009S Re: t,/gmuitipoL Pr-, 120 Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 7 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. 4Ps41/4 e -Glc is " t-la. - %'`1 ********x********************************** * TRANSMIT MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT * Yr7'ryr7t'7G'*****kyr*it ir**************************** NAME: CITY OF ORONO TEL :6122494616 DATE:12/15/99 13:05 TRANSMIT:612 348 8299 DURATION PAGE SESS RESULT TYPE: MEMORY TX MODE E-96 02 ' 24 06 303 OK /o Q� City ofOrono A..4,,.,„!w"►1 4% i 2750 Kelley Parkway P.G. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 24 9-4 600 Far: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: .L./...a...7_-_42._ To: _..._. -lg A -�.a_ ---.............._.._— _ Fax: 3 Ye — 82941 _ Re: J 0_10k--) ..-) Sender: _ N YOU SHOULD RECEIVI PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DC)NOT RI CI-IVF"ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. e 74t i'S 7741L6 ,,tCa/ J t7-7 0-1\-1 eetAoPT 3 `_l ' 1. J !t t,.,,. et/.J A •., 0 G,,,. l ,..-&- / ,r,�. 710'7P cS N Chi O O CiiofOrono �xEsxog 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 24 9-4 600 Fax: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: /2--- 4.- 9 9 To: 1-/S A , Fax: a yg " s29 1 Re: , - N1NC� Sender: pt \.r k0 N YOU SHOULD RECEIVE CP PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. �fh5 /'S 7 ®t.,u-77041 off` Cpet 4:1Av A 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 1, 1999 Item No.: 1 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: ;,4` ,\ Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron t�'1 Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Hanning Right-of-Way Credit- Resolution List of Attachments A - Resolution B - Staff Memo of 10-21-99 On October 28 Council directed staff to draft appropriate documents by which the City would enter into a binding agreement with the Hannings in regards to future use of the right-of-way taken from their property for the County Road 6 upgrade. Specifically,such an agreement would allow the use of said right-of-way as area credit toward the 5-acre area requirement should the Hannings wish to subdivide in the future. The City Attorney has suggested that a `resolution of intent to enter into an agreement' is a logical first step toward resolving the litigation between Hennepin County and the Hannings regarding the value of the land taken for right-of-way. The City is an indirect party to this litigation since the City is responsible for half of the right-of-way acquisition costs,and therefore has a stake in the outcome. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review and adopt or amend/adopt the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4220 COUNTY ROAD 6 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed an upgrade of County State Aid Highway No. 6 (hereinafter "Co. Rd. 6") in Orono, which upgrade required the acquisition of additional right-of-way from property owners abutting Co. Rd. 6; and WHEREAS,Robert and Julie Hanning are the owners of the property located at 4220 Co. Rd. 6("the property")from which Hennepin County required the acquisition of approximately 23,300 s.f. or approximately 0.53 acres of land for road right-of-way; and WHEREAS,the Hannings in 1998 requested that the City Council allow the use of the right-of-way taken by the County as area credit towards the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement at the time of future subdivision of their property; and WHEREAS, the Hannings are in litigation with Hennepin County regarding the g value of the property taken for right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has a financial interest in the outcome of said litigation because the City is required to pay half of the costs of acquisition of right-of-way for the Co. Rd. 6 upgrade project; and WHEREAS,the value of the land taken for right-of-way is influenced by how the taking impacts the ability of the property to be subdivided in the future; and WHEREAS, it was not the intent of the City of Orono to render the property no longer subdividable as a result of the taking, assuming that the property was subdividable prior to the taking; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to enter into an agreement with the Hannings to allow use of the taken right-of-way as area credit for a future subdivision, subject to reasonable specified conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A,which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. Page 2 of 4 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less,the new lots would have 95%of their area outside the easement,and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot,as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right- of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. CONCLUSION, STATEMENT OF INTENT AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby declares its intent as follows: 1. The City Council intends to enter into a formal agreement with the Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns, which agreement will incorporate the following: a. A future subdivision of the property undertaken while the 5-acre minimum lot size is applicable to the property, shall be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes. b. The dry-buildable area creditable toward a future lot shall be an amount equal to the dry-buildable area of taken right-of-way that directly abuts said future lot and that lies directly between Co. Rd. 6 and said lot. 2. The intent of this agreement is that the property owners will be in no better and no worse of a position for accomplishing a reasonable subdivision of their property than they were prior to the right-of-way taking. Page 3 of 4 3. Nothing in this agreement will purport to grant,nor commit to granting,any variances to the Orono Zoning Code, except that the agreement will establish that the City will as a stipulation of settlement agreement grant a variance to Section 10.02.34 to allow the use of area dedicated as public road right-of-way toward the 5-acre minimum lot area requirement based on the findings noted above. 4. The agreement is predicated on settlement of the condemnation appeal action in a dollar amount acceptable to the City Council and Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13t' day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 4 of 4 44-f4 ;,*144 le;elteit- ;1) Aittyeaile.--A- / 6_ oto, ry) cm4./) .7.6ePuc. , fbMr-cle GALL Ce9 1W (Ai / ! To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator ,. Date: October 21, 1999 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property Zoning District: RR-1A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of $37,158 as the value of the land taken; however, the commission also awarded an additional $125,000 that would be payable only if the Hanning's apply for a subdivision within 365 days of the commission's action and the subdivision is denied. The Hanning's have appealed this award to the District Court, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling$154,850. The County has cross-appealed,claiming the damages are no more than $24,300. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision, but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome) is handling this appeal process. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's and County's shared risk may be decreased substantially (i.e. by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Also,the judge has suggested that because the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights,that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 2 Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. This still leaves enough acreage to create two conforming 5-acre lots; however, the dividing line the Hanning's would prefer does not yield 2 regularly shaped lots because of the location of the existing house in the center of the property. The Hanning's preferred scenario would result in a new 4+acre lot and the house remaining on a 6+acre lot. However, in order to have the required 5 acres in each lot, the line would have to be 'gerrymandered' to pick up more land behind the house for the new vacant lot. With credit granted for the newly acquired right-of-way, a lesser degree of gerrymandering would be needed, while still resulting in just two lots on 11 acres. Council in 1998 expressed support for the Hanning's position, but the City Attorney advised that it would be inappropriate to grant a variance absent the public process (see minutes of June 22, 1998; Moorse letter of July 1, 1998 and Gaffron letter of July 7, 1999). Council is asked to weigh the $125,000 financial risk (City responsibility is half of this amount) against any precedent-setting aspects of such an agreement. In this 5-acre zone, staff believes the overall density is not at risk, and the precedential aspects are reduced because this would be a settlement of a condemnation case rather than an arbitrary zoning action. The City might be better positioned by considering this as the granting of a variance to credit the area of road easement taken, as opposed to granting a lot area variance for creation of a new lot. The amount of area that would be credited to a new easterly lot would be about 30' x 400' or about 1/4 acre. This is only about 5% of the 5-acre lot area requirement, and as a percentage of the required lot area, is relatively minor. In the 2-acre zone, a 5% variance would be 0.1 acre, still having little impact on actual buildability. It can certainly be argued that if only 5% of required lot area is in right-of-way,there is relatively little actual development impact, whether it's a 5 acre zone or a 1/2 acre zone. But, taking the same 1/4 acre of right-of-way out of a 1/2 acre lot would be disastrous. Any findings in support of the credit should therefore relate to the percentage of lot area in r-o-w, not the acreage. Accordingly, staff has drafted conceptual language committing to allowing the area credit. This would potentially be incorporated into a resolution and a settlement agreement that would be binding on future Councils. FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A, which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 3 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less, the new lots would have 95% of their area outside the easement, and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot, as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right-of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the following: 1. The Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns will be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes, such dry buildable land described in Exhibit A, for the purpose of subdividing the property. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 4 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff and the City Attorney to draft a letter of agreement in appropriate format, incorporating the above concepts, which would be offered only as part of a complete settlement of this right-of-way condemnation litigation. To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator , Date: October 21, 1999 1 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property Zoning District: RR-1A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of $37,158 as the value of the land taken; however, the commission also awarded an additional $125,000 that would be payable only if the Hanning's apply for a subdivision within 365 days of the commission's action and the subdivision is denied. The Hanning's have appealed this award to the District Court, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling$154,850. The County has cross-appealed,claiming the damages are no more than $24,300. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision, but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome) is handling this appeal process. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's and County's shared risk may be decreased substantially (i.e. by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Also,the judge has suggested that because the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights,that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 2 Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. This still leaves enough acreage to create two conforming 5-acre lots; however, the dividing line the Hanning's would prefer does not yield 2 regularly shaped lots because of the location of the existing house in the center of the property. The Hanning's preferred scenario would result in a new 4+acre lot and the house remaining on a 6+acre lot. However, in order to have the required 5 acres in each lot, the line would have to be 'gerrymandered' to pick up more land behind the house for the new vacant lot. With credit granted for the newly acquired right-of-way, a lesser degree of gerrymandering would be needed, while still resulting in just two lots on 11 acres. Council in 1998 expressed support for the Hanning's position, but the City Attorney advised that it would be inappropriate to grant a variance absent the public process (see minutes of June 22, 1998; Moorse letter of July 1, 1998 and Gaffron letter of July 7, 1999). Council is asked to weigh the $125,000 financial risk (City responsibility is half of this amount) against any precedent-setting aspects of such an agreement. In this 5-acre zone, staff believes the overall density is not at risk, and the precedential aspects are reduced because this would be a settlement of a condemnation case rather than an arbitrary zoning action. The City might be better positioned by considering this as the granting of a variance to credit the area of road easement taken, as opposed to granting a lot area variance for creation of a new lot. The amount of area that would be credited to a new easterly lot would be about 30' x 400' or about 1/4 acre. This is only about 5% of the 5-acre lot area requirement, and as a percentage of the required lot area, is relatively minor. In the 2-acre zone, a 5% variance would be 0.1 acre, still having little impact on actual buildability. It can certainly be argued that if only 5% of required lot area is in right-of-way,there is relatively little actual development impact. whether it's a 5 acre zone or a 1/2 acre zone. But, taking the same 1/4 acre of right-of-way out of a 1/2 acre lot would be disastrous. Any findings in support of the credit should therefore relate to the percentage of lot area in r-o-w, not the acreage. Accordingly, staff has drafted conceptual language committing to allowing the area credit. This would potentially be incorporated into a resolution and a settlement agreement that would be binding on future Councils. FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A, which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 3 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less, the new lots would have 95% of their area outside the easement, and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot, as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right-of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the following: 1. The Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns will be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes, such dry buildable land described in Exhibit A, for the purpose of subdividing the property. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Harming October 21, 1999 Page 4 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff and the City Attorney to draft a letter of agreement in appropriate format, incorporating the above concepts, which would be offered only as part of a complete settlement of this right-of-way condemnation litigation. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 10/20/99 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Chris Pence City Administrator's Report Title On-Site Systems Manager Item Description: State On-Site Code Changes: "Performance Systems" On October 4, 1999 the state adopted revisions to Chapter 7080, the Minnesota On-Site Sewage Treatment Code. These changes are forcing all local governmental units (LGU)to revise their local septic codes. Many of the new changes will place in the hands of the LGU much of the regulation which was formerly under the control of the state. Our current regulatory method, used for decades in Minnesota and throughout the U.S., is a "prescriptive" method in which the design of the system is strictly regulated. By contrast, the "performance" method regulates the output, or environmental impact of the system, in essence accepting use of any design of a system as long as it continues to meet the established environmental standards. The revised Chapter 7080 became effective October 4, 1999. The City of Orono will need to adopt the new Chapter 7080 as part of the municipal code by the next building season. The MPCA has a provision included in the new Chapter 7080 whereby the LGU has the option of adopting "performance standards" as a regulatory method. If the City feels it wants performance standards, in addition to adopting the revised Chapter 7080, we would also need to adopt the standards for performance systems by reference. Performance Systems Chapter 7080 now allows the use of"performance systems" as a method of treating sewage. A performance system, as defined by Minnesota Chapter 7080, is " an individual sewage treatment system described in part 7080.0179 designed to adequately protect the public health and the environment and to provide long term performance." Basically this means that any type of system can be installed if allowed in the local code. A performance system basically entails the use of pretreatment (aerobic treatment unit, sand filter or peat filter) followed by a soil dispersal system. Examples of a soil dispersal system would be drip irrigation or an in ground trench system utilizing either a reduction in drainfield size or a reduction in separation to the seasonally high watertable. It is not recommended to use a combination of drainfield reduction and a reduction to the seasonal watertable when designing an on-site septic system. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has developed mandated outcomes of a performance system. ► Bodily contact with sewage is not allowed. ► All disposal of sewage effluent must be below grade. ► The system must conduct itself in a safe manner, free from physical injury and harm. ► All performance systems must conform to all applicable federal, state and local requirements. The system's must also conform to the manufacturer's requirements ► Chapter 7080 requires there must be some separation during loading of sewage effluent into a soil dispersal system. ► All fecal organisms must be totally removed within twenty-five (25) feet from the soil dispersal area during climatic and loading stress. ► If a lot adjoins a lake, there must be a phosphorous concentration of 1 mg/1 or less. ► If a lot adjoins a lake, the LGU has the option of instituting a nitrogen standard. Monitoring and Mitigation Plan A performance system will be similar to other septic systems in Orono. To obtain a permit, a site design will need to be submitted to the City for review. The site evaluation must be conducted by a state licensed Designer 1 or Designer 2. A monitoring and mitigation plan must also be included with the site design. The monitoring plan must state the type and frequency of monitoring and require routine flow measurement. There are three types of monitoring. One way is to use a monitoring well. A second way is soil monitoring. A third possibility is to take water samples from the pretreatment system and assess them for contaminants. These water samples would be sent to a certified laboratory. The best monitoring plan is to use a combination of these methods. A mitigation plan must show what will be done if the performance system fails to provide treatment and disposal. Mitigation is the most important of all the requirements. If the performance system is not performing up to the required standards, a plan must be in place that will detail what type of system is going to replace the non-compliant performance system. Operating Permit If after reviewing the site design the system seems to be proper and will function properly, the City would approve the design and the homeowner would then obtain a operating permit from the City. Once the homeowner has obtained the operating permit, the licensed septic system installer would then secure the septic permit. This septic permit would not be available until the homeowner had obtained the operating permit. The operating permit would contain maintenance requirements informing the homeowner of what will be required from the homeowner over the life of the system. The operating permit will include approved monitoring and mitigation plans. It will also include a section stating what is going to be required for compliance and the possibility of system use being discontinued if certain parameters, set by the City, are not met. The permit will also contain the frequency of reporting to the City. The City will not be responsible for monitoring performance systems. It will be the responsibility of the homeowner to monitor their system within the boundaries set by the City. The operating permit would be valid in five year increments. The homeowner will need to renew the operating permit every five years. If the operating permit is not renewed, use of the septic system must be discontinued. This operating permit( or something else?) needs to be recorded on the property deed. New homeowners will need to follow the same regulations as the previous homeowner. This will also prevent "surprises" for any new homeowner. Public Education It will also be the responsibility of the LGU to provide consumer information to the public. The information needed will include estimated costs for construction, operation, monitoring, service, component replacement and system management. Information will also need to be provided regarding the anticipated system life. It is also the responsibility of the LGU to make information available to the public regarding hydraulic and organic loading rates to the absorption area in relation to flow amounts. Pro's & Con's of Performance Systems There is going to be a vast change in the way septic systems are going to be designed and used over the next few years. I see merits to using performance systems. One is that now a performance septic system may be able to be used in places where only holding tanks could go before. Also, using a performance system could reduce the number of mound systems being installed in Orono. The only reason I see this being a benefit is that most homeowners don't want the hump" in their yard. In no way am I saying mound systems do not work properly. It would just be a good public relations move. On the other hand, performance systems are probably going to cost more than a standard system. A performance system is going to need constant monitoring. The homeowner will be required to monitor the septic system and keep the City informed on how it is functioning. I foresee a homeowner doing this for a short period of time and basically become tired of doing the constant monitoring. Another problem is going to be the operating permit. The operating permit will need to state that if the septic system does not meet certain criteria set by the City, the use of the system will need to be discontinued. It will be very difficult for a home to just stop using the septic system. It will also be very difficult for the City to force a homeowner to discontinue use of the septic system. I foresee enforcement regarding compliance reports being very difficult. I will be attending classes in November and December regarding these new performance systems. After attending these classes, I will have more definitive information. Council Action Requested Staff recommends that council schedule a work session to discuss the potential merits and pitfalls of adopting state code provisions for the use of performance systems. O. 0. ---- _,-,,,,_‘___-__, .._-_ ,._.L.—________----__. . --\,,,_\:,,...\\t...: r---r- \ \\ A \\\:.:,c,.;,-;A, . .. likrk �\ 1\ �`i r ,. ,z\ ,'\\ \• v • 4�mo,� r \\\\ \\\\\\ \ \IfM 1, \ \ \\ , % \ '1,1*;\ \ _� \ \ , , I A i//at, — 's ----- _..____ . .-..) , \,. A.. 1167:7%•/... / t / ...:4,--4-A.• i yt • ' ) /- 'is\\i'. • • 1 . /- �/ "j 7 1 -!h" '( i` r / / 7� ;'. 1 ( \ _"-'-.-11 \••‘- / ''r// ///// .\ \ :C•k - ,------------ZZ-Z-',,N NN. „ / / 2, ...,\„ \\61... ,. _I_4___-._.-T._ _:--L--,,-------_,__.'":---=....-_T:-r--- \\ .,:.:,. ---:-------'--- ././ \' \'5::•;, '+17----_-_- •,,-,......2.7"--..... a.\�, , '.....N \ \ \ N.y..'''-::,.;- :- --\\ , \ \ \\ \.tt% , �� \ \ \ \ � ice' I I i 1 j /l( / / • / / i it / / . // ...."' -'414-'' H--., _// I cr. (1 I \ �/ orad m.m.vo.,w C' 1 Hi- .i. ! a • U - a .i • '.. °all. • 2 I.L.•2 • • 0. -,---- -, o I • \ Mir 3.45.0 S \ \ '`.;'. ;:i.. i! I.! • '`,.__,,„, \\1 c• ,\i‘,le:., V.' 1:-. . .. • . . . . . i I `,...j -....7'..... *......----,...„. . i ,----, , . \\,\ .\ .f..E.. 1 I N \N\\\\\\ )rap \ \\\\.\' \l".4....c.:,.., ,-1.... , \ \ N \ \ `,, I \ i • \\\\ A ' VIi&I.,----, )W‘\. 1\\ \ •ttii.: : , \ \.. ,___ 11•11-=-........ 1 ''11 J -.) ''gr ----- b % , %\\ \% \ \. 7 ' \\\ \ \\ ,....:, T. $ /-./ \ i I / ft* / r''..------- .-:'- '- / \ \0 \ Itt:. • / 1 / / / j F / 1 / / 1,1 ........--- .......---,..7--- ....,.I......",./AL......,.....f•to, ',VI:A:4' /— -- ( / ,,,,O . _../.%'1. \ ' laY7 9 7 i.---':—_---j,li"-`411S-Pr. 4.'i'---' - N\ : 4 ii/ . ,.‘-';i :,.ji. '1W411. -s- \1 NI \)' :',\) c\.;,,,,t..:ir. / 2 / // i I ilk .-,...:f , .__-, • i /// 7,,, $ \\\ wt. - ,-- .,, 4 I I s •-,,,,--IfiN\- A 0 / / / // / ' \ - \\-.:,:C:, 1, - \ \ .---------"\ -$'' i I/ 9/, / ,.. \,.,\..' \\•;,....j.4.-,':. . -i.------ ----- -----".---,==,.‘,N \N,\..,.._ _.........,/ 1 • ....,.... "411,7..,..'.................'''-------''' / . r ----.. , '---.. \ \ \, w•••k,.. , „.. \ \ \ --;..__.-,..-,..:...--..__7.-,-•-----— -- IN• \I \r..i:•, \__-=..„ - ..--<-' • • l' ------.... I I •• i I / -. -• i I - . / / I / / //.,. / i/ /. . OWOCS/.A.OIAO.l r : •...., . , ., . I.. ;..., .,t.. . . . -.I I • i . : •; • . 's- -k O F 'I -1 . • C .-.• 1 I ;I , A • ...: • . „ •• r 0 . 2 t'l yV / 1 \ .C‘ I\\\,c'',...• ."--- .. \\\ \ ''.'':.::'-' 1\ \\\\ ` --- ) k --/ /"'"' \\\\TO '''('''. 1 \ \ . . \ ,,..._. __., \.,... ) V't \ \ \\* • • ,1 \ \ \ \ \......... -- ----- v\ .,,, 4, , .,...,:.., . . \t‘ II I �\\ ` �_— . % / \\\',\\\ \\\ H I lei r• / — / _! k'\\1\; \ '07.:; I /if/ — \ �.r.. 11 / J �-- �� � ' 1�' l / -4P -,:—..-----_-<- -----.' ------ \' 1 1 / (QjØHi? ) ///-y/ r\\ i/ / i i//// / // ' \\ o \ \' -, / / f k f/ •/ / \ \\''" 1, _—_, :S.\.\....;. \\ \_moi / / / \;\\ -- "� \ \�/ / / . \ \ 4. ' Sil ------,-N \44,v . ... .1 .......4,-.....-•-.." \0\\\..3'.. \ \ \ \ I I \ \,_ '11 ,--'-----'----."', \ \ \ ) 1 I j i Irk 's\ i'' I 1 I 1 I ► i 1 �� � I `. l/lI / / ;, J i / / %% /// 4 OWOCo M...Mt N . ..( 1;!..,i . NN. . •l'... .••• : ig r e 1 1 V 0 Z : U: .. _ --\ r . •\ • 1�'n,3.L9.05 _ \ _.' ,�\ M \\V., `�\�"1: . .11\\ \\\ eN_______, , \\\, \1\•\\\.,.'„,,a:•,,, —\—� • \\ \\ v I 1// ' / V__ c._----=_--,_ S v i 4;, . / /// / ----- • •Ate i'l,/,// / .... 1 (17//::;...;.,,,._.______:,.:.._:([;f:r.,),.7;..1,,06._:_,:lizrfliao N•_.,.-- \ --- \ ) \ 1\1*ttis\ ..;:::::.. i_7 alh. / , /7 ..,..-,,0,4.f:', ily ) / /. -4,, • ., \ \Ai __��\ \-�..._„/ / \ • \\\7.is � P ._ - \ , \ 1,i. . \ \ 1 \ , \ \ \ \ � i � / /� . , '•1 / I i /. l 1/ 1 / / -- • it i 1L / II1jm Fy sc1( � l / it � / / / II ... ;,v � r s(", fi --....,.N..., ).• x ,. OYOC,M.01.00.,N ,,-:: .1 ;.'( iii_ A ig` O , 1 if ... ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 Mayor/Council Report-continued Kelley remarked that increases for the Long Lake Fire Department pension plan were approved without City Council approval,noting that 80%of the budget is derived from Orono, and suggested that the Fire Department notify the City Council before future financial decisions are finalized. Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City Council should meet with the Long Lake City Council to discuss financial issues related to both the Police and Fire Departments. Kelley suggested that a prioritized list be comprised by the City Administrator every two weeks with the current projects being listed along with a time schedule to help the City Council keep current on the projects and to ensure that future needs are being addressed adequately. Goetten indicated she would like to be updated at least once a month on the various street improvement projects that are currently underway. Gappa indicated he could have the Public Works Department review traffic counts on County Road 15 to determine if traffic lights are warranted. Kellogg noted that County Road 15 should remain at the same elevation as previously, with the County Road 6 project on schedule. Concerning Ferndale, Plymouth has drafted an agreement which will be discussed at the meeting on June 29th. ENGINEER REPORT Mayor Jabbour inquired about the status of the Edgewood Hills sewer project. Kellogg stated the project, particularly the directional borings, is being rebid. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#15) ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING -REQUEST FOR AN AGREEMENT RELATED TO A FUTURE SUBDIVISION AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse stated the Hannings had expressed concern that the County Road 6 project would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future because of the right-of-way acquisition. The Council had previously indicated that it would consider entering into an agreement with the Hannings to maintain the ability to create a second lot if the lot area was reduced below the required amount. 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#1 S) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued City Staff has reviewed the property both before and after the acquisition of the County Road 6 right-of-way, and has determined that the property includes ten plus acres of dry buildable land. The Hannings have indicated a concern regarding the configuration of the possible new lot because of the location of the existing residence. Moorse expressed concern that if a lot area variance by agreement is granted, no public input will be allowed, and since the City is not a direct party to this condemnation procedure, Moorse questioned whether the City is legally able to enter into such an agreement. Tom Radio stated the agreement would attempt to bind future City Councils and current law prohibits that because it does not allow for due process. Radio commented the City Council is limited in its ability to give the Hannings much relief. Mrs. Hanning stated no variance is being requested at this time. Mayor Jabbour noted the Hannings were offered $12,000 for the right-of-way. Due to the amount of land remaining after the right-of-way acquisition, which does allow for two lots but with an undesirable configuration, it was the feeling of Mayor Jabbour that the Hannings have lost more than just the land in the right-of-way. Radio commented the Hannings should take the worst case scenario and present it to the County, which would be that the City Council would not grant a variance. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like the City to grant a contractual variance to them or go on record saying that a variance will be denied. Mayor Jabbour commented the City Council was under the impression the last time this matter was discussed that one lot would become unbuildable after the right-of-way acquisition, which is not the case now. Flint suggested the City Council could grant conceptual approval which would not be binding on future action by the City Council. Radio cautioned against such action. Kelley suggested the City take no action. 17 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#15) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued Gaffron suggested the Hannings file an application and get an answer before the hearing on September 23rd. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like some action by the City Council on this matter. Radio noted a motion was not necessary or appropriate at this time. Mayor Jabbour directed City Staff to draft a letter to the Hannings stating the facts, noting that the property line for the second lot is undesirable according to Orono ordinances and causes other concerns for the first lot. (#16) REVISED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF THE TAX FORFEITED PARCEL AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE -RESOLUTION NO. 4105 Moorse stated the resolution has been amended regarding the release of the tax forfeited parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive to reflect the City Council's wishes that the outstanding special assessments on the property be waived and that the tax forfeited parcel be allowed to remain a separate parcel, subject to a covenant being placed on the parcel prohibiting the parcel from being a buildable lot. Mayor Jabbour expressed concern that the building should be condemned and torn down due to public safety issues. Kelley indicated he also was in favor of that. Gaffron noted the petroleum tanks were removed 10 or 15 years ago. Kelley inquired what impact this has had on the sewer in the area. Mayor Jabbour stated the sewer was disconnected and capped on behalf of the owner. Tom Radio recommended the City Council add the condition that the property owner waive any right to object to a hazardous building procedure with the costs being assessed against the property owner. Flint commented that it should be made clear that the City is not condemning the land but the building. Goetten stated she would be in favor of condemning the building but not the land. 18 HCevC) CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Parkway 2150 Kelley y Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 7, 1999 Julie Hanning 4220 County Road 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Request for Subdivision Approval Commitment Dear Mrs. Hanning: You have requested that the City commit in writing to granting a lot area variance for a subdivision of your property. The survey you provided shows a"pre-taking" proposed lot area of 5.0 acres, and a"post-taking" area of 4.76 acres,which you correctly noted would require a lot area variance. It is my understanding that your goal is to establish the value of the property taken for County Road 6, but not necessarily to complete a subdivision at this time. City Administrator Ron Moorse's letter of July 1, 1998 noted that the Council was sympathetic to your concerns about the impacts the taking might have on the layout of a future subdivision in relation to the existing house. It also noted that the City will not enter into an agreement for granting a lot area variance absent the public review process. When City Assessor Bill Davy and I met with you on December 8, 1998, we at that time advised you that the only method of obtaining a commitment from the City that a subdivision with a lot area variance would be approved,is to begin the formal approval process. Once you file a complete application for preliminary plat approval, a public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. After the hearing, Planning Commission will make a recommendation to. the Council. The City Council will, within 120 days of your complete application submittal, either take formal action to grant the variance and adopt a resolution for preliminary plat approval, or will deny it based on reasons which would be specified. The "Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution" is the formal written commitment that the City will approve the plat and area variance if all conditions of approval are met. Once preliminary plat approval is obtained, you would have one year in which to file a Final Plat Approval application. You could also choose to not proceed with final plat approval, and not incur the final plat fees. A majority of the fees associated with the subdivision process are not due until the final plat application, such as park dedication fee, final plat review fee, and legal review and filing fees. The preliminary plat fees you will incur upfront,however, include the $350 application Telephone(612)249-4600 • Fax(612)249-4616 Julie Hanning July 7, 1999 Page 2 fee,$50 septic review fee for one new lot, and whatever costs you incur in providing the certificate of survey,septic system site evaluation,and wetland delineation(all of which are necessary for the preliminary plat application). My recommendation is that you make a formal, complete preliminary plat application and go through the review process to ultimately determine whether the City would grant a lot area variance based on the unique circumstances of your site. The next application deadline is Wednesday,July 21 at noon for a hearing at the August 16 Planning Commission meeting. You should refer to the subdivision information packet you received on July 6,and contact me or Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger if you have any questions. / • Sincerely, v :..--/ /--- Michael P. Gaf ron Senior Planning Coordinator cc: Ron Moorse Paul Weinberger v. 0 k 0 O CITY of ORONO �`, �; `. , ` f� Municipal Offices d.\;,.xz�•I �'4 Street Address: Mailing Address: `9$EsKOg' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 1, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning 4220 Sixth Avenue North Orono, MN 55356 Dear Robert and Julie Hanning: This letter is in response to your request that the City enter into an agreement with you to approve a subdivision of your property that would include a lot area variance of 23,000 s.f. for a newly created lot. The amount of the requested variance is equal to the amount of property acquired by Hennepin County as right-of-way for the County Road 6 project. The City Attorney has a concern about granting a lot area variance without the public input process that would be a part of a subdivision or variance application process. Although the City could enter into an agreement regarding a reduced lot area as part of the settlement of claims related to a right- of-way acquisition, the City is not a direct party to the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition process. Therefore, the City is not able to enter into such an agreement with you. However, the City is sympathetic to your concern that the lot configuration resulting from a subdivision that includes a full 5 acres of dry buildable area for the new lot would not maintain the current homestead lot as a desirable lot in Orono. Sincerely, G� v Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator RJM/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 0 FAX 473-0510 • ,e-4r 6,Vt-+3 7v /�N /° - -14" l/ : O To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: October 20, 1999 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property Zoning District: RR-1A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of$37,158. The Hanning's appealed this award, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling$154,850. The County similarly appealed, claiming the damages are no more than$24,300. The (appeals court judge?)concluded that the Commissioner's award of$37,158 is appropriate, but also concluded that the Hanning's will be awarded an additional $125,000 if the subdivision of their property is denied. The judge's position is that the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights, and that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision,but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome)is pursuing an appeal through the courts. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's risk may be decreased substantially(i.e.by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. This still leaves enough acreage to create two conforming 5-acre lots; however, the dividing line the Hanning's would prefer does not yield 2 regularly shaped lots because of the location of the existing house in the center of the property. The 1 Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 20, 1999 Page 2 Hanning's preferred scenario would result in a new 4+acre lot and the house remaining on a 6+acre lot. However, in order to have the required 5 acres in each lot, the line would have to be 'gerrymandered' to pick up more land behind the house for the new vacant lot. With credit granted for the newly acquired right-of-way, a lesser degree of gerrymandering would be needed, while still resulting in just two lots on 11 acres. Council in 1998 expressed support for the Hanning's position, but the City Attorney advised that it would be inappropriate to grant a variance absent the public process (see minutes of June 22, 1998; Moorse letter of July 1, 1998 and Gaffron letter of July 7, 1999). Council is asked to weigh the $125,000 financial risk (City responsibility is half of this amount) against any precedent-setting aspects of such an agreement. In this 5-acre zone, staff believes the overall density is not at risk, and the precedential aspects are reduced because this would be a settlement of a condemnation case rather than an arbitrary zoning action. The City might be better positioned by considering this as the granting of a variance to credit the area of road easement taken, as opposed to granting a lot area variance for creation of a new lot. The amount of area that would be credited to a new easterly lot would be about 30' x 400' or about 1/4 acre. This is only about 5% of the 5-acre lot area requirement, and as a percentage of the required lot area, is relatively minor. In the 2-acre zone, a 5% variance would be 0.1 acre, still having little impact on actual buildability. It can certainly be argued that if only 5% of required lot area is in right-of-way,there is relatively little actual development impac, whether its a 5 acre zone or a 1/2 acre zone. But, taking the same 1/4 acre of right-of-way out of a 1/2 acre lot would be disastrous. Any findings in support of the credit should therefore relate to the percentage of lot area in r-o-w, not the acreage. Accordingly, staff has drafted conceptual language committing to allowing the area credit. This would potentially be incorporated into a resolution and a settlement agreement that would be binding on future Councils. FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A, which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. s Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 20, 1999 Page 3 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less, the new lots would have 95% of their area outside the easement, and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot, as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right-of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the following: 1. The Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns will be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes, such dry buildable land described in Exhibit A, for the purpose of subdividing the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff and the City Attorney to draft a letter of agreement in appropriate format, incorporating the above concepts, which would be offered only as part of a complete settlement of this right-of-way condemnation litigation. 6 au Ft l>e+v" ! 't,- F& C- 4' .c4 it/ ' c m To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: October 20, 1999 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property zo„,,fie> ►s,-Aur- 40e.-/A 5,�6,,,i rfit--1 121.-44t gos eb4047-,* S Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's ! compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of$37,158. The Hanning's appealed this award, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling $154,850. The County similarly appealed,claiming the damages are no more than$24,300. The appeals court judge concluded that the Commissioner's award of$37,158 is appropriate,but also concluded that the Hanning's will be awarded an additional $125,000 if the subdivision of their property is denied. The judge's position is that the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights, and that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision,but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome) is pursuing an appeal through the courts. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's risk may be decreased substantially(i.e. by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. The property most likely could have been divided into 2 lots before the taking, and probably stil can, but the dividing line will be more gerrymandered under the "after" scenario. Giving credit or the 0.4 acre dry buildable taking would allow a less gerrymandered lot to be created, while still essulltting in just two lots on 11 acres. 4--b/ .5rCII-1 ._..)- -4-0-e-A-A4 / r OK tisr Z Are , .. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 20, 1999 Page 2 Council would be reversing its position stated previously (see minutes of June 22, 1998; Moorse letter of July 1, 1998 and Gaffron letter of July 7, 1999) if it chooses to grant such a credit absent completion of the preliminary plat review process. (e,tr./ OA' 5.126441 Council is asked to weigh the $125,000 financial riskoagainst any precedent-setting aspects of such an agreement. In this 5-acre zone, staff believes the overall density is not at risk, and the precedential aspects are reduced because this would be a settlement of a condemnation case rather than an arbitrary zoning action. The City might be better positioned by considering this as the granting of a variance to credit the area of road easement taken, as opposed to granting a lot area variance fol creation of a new lot. Accordingly, staff has drafted conceptual language committing to allowing the area credit. This —would potentially be incorporated into a resolution and a settlement agreement that would be binding • on future Councils. /4_ FINDINGS j / 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A ' ro`� " fv. 44 or Pt 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes "`ver the portion --, of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the (c right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. .v/S):,,jijo'irp} 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the A f; existing residence on the property. ,(, 4. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the ' low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in fj\k)' conflict with the City's rural philosophy. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 20, 1999 Page 3 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. A THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the following: 1. The Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns will be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes, such dry buildable land described in Exhibit A, for the purpose of subdividing the property. orisrussion 1/7 How might this action impact other takings related to County Road 6? - How might this action impact future takings? si- How might this action affect future subdivisins? I 'tl\ere any support for allowing area credit for wetlands in the 5-acre zone, as long as the t h s some/minimum amount of dry buildable plus adequate,septic sites? The current \� develbpmenX process and zoning codes result in an overall gross drely in the 54cre zone of approxi iately 1 lot,per 7 acres... LIVIr‘ bi 14,—L 1,-/ 4 g I /‘ . 4* V6 44416774-.- t , 6,,j? 6..c pi..,54 , citraLec 4 2 - / 4 `` Z,117, 000 Cov^v'SSroN P7it)p/N6 ilOGP4P- MVO �+1��� SCZ ct're(S'ldtei.-Z Ppb ,4r1771itD€ t.klsuA-L, C° 11412 6004.17S' M 6eAtu )r 4WD. Isie-eit)3/41 Fi-on/iir ,51,tebivi 1*P/0% fArptc, /Uegg-pk1 To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: October 21, 1999 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property Zoning District: RR-1A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of $37,158 as the value of the land taken; however, the commission also awarded an additional$125,000 that would be payable only if the Hanning's apply for a subdivision within 365 days of the commission's action and the subdivision is denied. The Hanning's have appealed this award to the District Court, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling$154,850. The County has cross-appealed,claiming the damages are no more than $24,300. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision, but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome) is handling this appeal process. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's and County's shared risk may be decreased substantially (i.e.by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Also,the judge has suggested that because the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights,that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 2 Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. This still leaves enough acreage to create two conforming 5-acre lots; however, the dividing line the Hanning's would prefer does not yield 2 regularly shaped lots because of the location of the existing house in the center of the property.The Hanning's preferred scenario would result in a new 4+acre lot and the house remaining on a 6+acre lot. However, in order to have the required 5 acres in each lot, the line would have to be 'gerrymandered'to pick up more land behind the house for the new vacant lot. With credit granted for the newly acquired right-of-way,a lesser degree of gerrymandering would be needed,while still resulting in just two lots on 11 acres. Council in 1998 expressed support for the Hanning's position,but the City Attorney advised that it would be inappropriate to grant a variance absent the public process(see minutes of June 22, 1998; Moorse letter of July 1, 1998 and Gaffron letter of July 7, 1999). Council is asked to weigh the $125,000 financial risk (City responsibility is half of this amount) against any precedent-setting aspects of such an agreement. In this 5-acre zone, staff believes the overall density is not at risk, and the precedential aspects are reduced because this would be a settlement of a condemnation case rather than an arbitrary zoning action. The City might be better positioned by considering this as the granting of a variance to credit the area of road easement taken, as opposed to granting a lot area variance for creation of a new lot. The amount of area that would be credited to a new easterly lot would be about 30'x 400' or about 1/4 acre. This is only about 5% of the 5-acre lot area requirement, and as a percentage of the required lot area, is relatively minor. In the 2-acre zone, a 5% variance would be 0.1 acre, still having little impact on actual buildability. It can certainly be argued that if only 5%of required lot area is in right-of-way,there is relatively little actual development impact,whether it's a 5 acre zone or a 1/2 acre zone. But, taking the same 1/4 acre of right-of-way out of a 1/2 acre lot would be disastrous. Any findings in support of the credit should therefore relate to the percentage of lot area in r-o-w, not the acreage. Accordingly, staff has drafted conceptual language committing to allowing the area credit. This would potentially be incorporated into a resolution and a settlement agreement that would be binding on future Councils. FINDINGS 1. The Hannings are owners of real property described in Exhibit A, which property is located in the RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 dry buildable acres in each building site. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 3 2. Hennepin County has acquired an easement for road purposes over the portion of the property described in Exhibit B. 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.02.34 excludes the use of area dedicated as public right-of-way as credit towards lot area requirements. 4. The Property contained approximately 11.2 dry buildable acres prior to the right-of-way easement acquisition and contains approximately 10.8 dry buildable acres after the acquisition. 5. The impact of the easement makes creation of a regularly shaped new building lot even more difficult than before the acquisition, due to the location of the existing residence on the property. 6. The basis for creation of the 5-acre zoning district in 1974 was to retain the low-density rural character of northwest Orono. Allowing subdivision of the 11-acre property into two lots of approximately equal area will not be in conflict with the City's rural philosophy. 7. Granting area credit for the area of the road easement will allow a subdivision creating a new building lot that is less irregularly shaped than the lot that could be created absent such credit. 8. Granting such credit is reasonable given the impact of this taking on the developability of the property. Further, because the credit that would be granted for each newly created 5-acre building site would be approximately 1/4 acre or less, the new lots would have 95% of their area outside the easement, and this 5% "variance" has little impact on the future use of each 5-acre lot,as compared to the major impact if 1/4 acre of a 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot was in right-of-way. 9. The granting of this credit is unique to to this property because it involves the settlement of litigation in regards to a right-of-way condemnation, which is not the case in most other properties in this or other zoning districts in Orono. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby agrees to the following: 1. The Hannings and their heirs, successors and assigns will be granted dry buildable area credit for the dry buildable land taken through condemnation for County highway construction purposes,such dry buildable land described in Exhibit A, for the purpose of subdividing the property. Co. Rd. 6 Acquisition: Hanning October 21, 1999 Page 4 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff and the City Attorney to draft a letter of agreement in appropriate format, incorporating the above concepts,which would be offered only as part of a complete settlement of this right-of-way condemnation litigation. 0 0 CiyofOrono iket 1'i �'1 4,G 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 24 9-4 600 Fax: (612) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: la-- l _ 14 To: EtAtege 7 Fax: 34aLl c949 g Re: .j 4/ #4,771 A% it 1 ( Moik/V tW NC I Sender: p14 t 6 - Kie.&) YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 249-4600. PkS4,5 12- /l C CrMI ?'Aa?" 01-) / 44' 1p" -t-i -ts'Olt a � f yid 4 yes.®t... .713 C c. ., t North r. v vPen a 0 dlil Y ¶j /2- I Coectob lar" i o ` iio`o H % o-5-....g 110 5. i - 1 .. r : z 1 w N 1.08.40'W 130.80:. ::i _fi_I'L / l / x'`11 /% / % �\ "- •tls / / 1 / /7 11 1 1 j \ / 4 4 .itt . m t I .2 I �'_'� / g j� � i ' 1 I � I < ... \\ ' j 1 I I \ \ \ • \ \ .. \ 7//". :,, -,, A&I''''', \ ----____ , „ \\ \ . . (.., '0 v., \ ... / 7 , ----,_____-_!-----,-------- \ ------T::--_-,--__ k\ , \ / / /7-- _--- -.,, \ --------_.:=-_-_-_-_-_---I:------ _-____-_ i it,\\ \ ,. . , / / // /..-- .......------- N \iNN. ------------------- ',3 . \ ' \ sr` • / / / ,,,-- ____--------,\ \ ____-_ -___z___. ____ ( „ 4.0,,,, \ \ /i. �f/ / _____- .„>.,\\\ —, , –� , 7 °4 / k b \\a\ \ , / fAy i // .�?.\\� \ 1� y c. 0b , ~ \ , 81. ` N • \A*. • \ // / / / .-.....:.,,i, \‘ s„-- - ,..-- / / / i 4).----Th 1 ,,-.14:‘,. F. t i, •A!ye:-. \ / . , _ - // / ( . \ \ \ . 4tfie-';'>'',4,------ -;/.-- / / / vi / ,,.. 1' ; .0 - / . out / /s / / .. 00 „,...____ ..,;464 . Nffinek --�� / ./ /SS . / / / 0 m T'V 0 v 1.).0. g a a a m • ., r r ' '"i N w � �) © N 1.08'40'W 130.80 — X t/ �—'-.-----'.S.--- —_ --1 0 cA i— '. 0 N / 1 \ 1 . 65 V U // � 1 / / � _ is : . tl • . . 1/\* 5.<!. ',4,;4/> // / / / / / I / I f/ , / / 1 / / I • / \ /J 1 ,i /1 % l . o f. t a I at) ii ' ii i I I\ I . /tit° . \ \ \ • \ r‘ \ \ \ -...._ ...----- • - i� \ \ ___—..-------:::---:::":---- ���i_ )116\ N\ `\ \ ! .7•-----) i� ��\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ '--/ \\ \ ice' `\ \ �� �_� __ u ;;;;(,,.:,,\.\\••.\\ \ , *. 7 / 7 / Z,..../'.. .--- '. \ fiC__:----'------ ,.,,....'."'-'•.. .........."..: t / // /1"................/....t......T...._.. .,........\\\\.\\\ ,,:,......,\.....................__ ---:----.................:•••................ \ .:.'.4.';''' " .\ \ / / 41. / / / / / e „ris,/ / '-'4:\;,\N4,—, \ \ 1 NI ;/ )7 , i • ....:...'..\ --, \ ' ) rim,— ) ( : -,,,,,,,,=.1.-, \ ,./,.. z / / i & 4 ) ._A.Api.. .,... /// // , 7 ,1f f, r / ''+.\` ' \ \ \� N. til' 7 ,,���// 4 1 . --....„....._ AK",.../P ;>-----. V / I / / _. ! AMY KLOBUCHAR *pco (612) 348-5550 COUNTY ATTORNEY W �N •cP 4'NEso OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY C-2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55487 January 5, 1999 TO THOSE LISTED ON THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Re: Hennepin County v. H. William Lurton, et al. Court File CD-2485, Parcel No. 18 Dear Interested Parties: Enclosed herewith and served upon you by U.S. mail is a Notice of Cross Appeal of the Commissioners' Award. Sincerely, MICHAEL O. FREEMAN Henne in County Attorney LISA A. BERG Assistant County Attorney Telephone: (612) 348-8574 FAX: (612) 348-8299 LAB:kd Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .. t SERVICE LIST Hennepin County v. H. William Lurton, et al. Parcel 18 Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Julie S. Hanning 4220 County Road No. 6 4220 County Road No. 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 Long Lake, MN 55356 Patrick J. Neaton Dave Swenson, Manager Attorney at Law Hennepin County Community Works & Chamberlain & Neaton P.L.L.P. Transit - Real Estate Division 445 Lake, Suite 333 417 North Fifth Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362 Lin Vee, City Clerk Hennepin County Taxpayer Services City of Orono A600 Hennepin County Government Center P.O. Box 66 300 South Sixth Street Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Minneapolis, MN 55487 CONDEMNATION STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The County of Hennepin, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL vs. ) AS TO PARCEL NO. 18 ) H. William Lurton, et al., ) Cond. No. CD-2485 ) C.A. File No. 98-0063 Respondents. ) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES TO: THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ABOVE-NAMED COURT: YOU AND EACH OF YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Hennepin County, Petitioner/Appellant herein, hereby appeals to the above-named Court from the Award in the Report of Commissioners dated November 24, 1998, and filed in the sum of Thirty-seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty-eight ($37,158.00) Dollars as damages for the taking of Parcel No. 18 in these proceedings, the parcel being described on page 2 of the Report of Commissioners. Hennepin County does not appeal from the award for appraisal fees in the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. The grounds for this appeal are that the award is grossly excessive and should be no greater than Twenty-four Thousand Three Hundred ($24,300.00) Dollars. The nature and amount of Petitioner/Appellant's claim on this appeal are that the award is unfair, unconscionable, grossly excessive, and the damages resulting from the taking of the parcel are no greater than Twenty-four Thousand Three Hundred ($24,300.00) Dollars. MICHAEL 0. FREEMAN Hennepin County Attorney Y LIS A. BERG (120807) Assistant County Attorney Attorneys for County of Hennepin 2000A Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Telephone: (612) 348-8574 Fax: 348-8299 Dated: **-3...0_ � /'' 2 rte.-.r--•- -,.,.. PAUL W.CHAMBERLAIN PATRICK J.NEATON CHAMBERLAIN & NEATON P.L.L.P. DE(', ,'j q 19:1 MICHAEL L.PUKUCH Attorneys at Law 445 Lake,Suite 333 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 612/473-8444 • Fax 612/473-3501 December 29, 1998 TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES (ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST) RE: The County of Hennepin v. H. William Lurton, et al. Court File No.: CD-2485 Dear Interested Parties: Enclosed herewith and served upon you by mail is a Notice of Appeal of Commissioners' Award by Respondents Robert C. Harming, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning. Yours very truly, a- y.N Li' ) Patrick J. Neaton P :ln enc . cc . 6 t'' 64(2/- 4/,' 4(2/-4p,`/le 6U i rem STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The County of Hennepin, Cond. No. CD-2485 Petitioner, C.A. File No. 98-0063 vs. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF COMMISSIONERS' AWARD H. William Lurton, et al. (PARCEL 18) Respondents. TO: The Parties Listed on the Attached Service List and Their Attorneys, if Any. YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondents Robert C. Harming, Jr. and Julie S. Hanning hereby appeal to the District Court in and for the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District, from the Award in the amount of$37,158, and all conditions thereto contained in the report of the Commissioners in the above-entitled matter filed with the Clerk of District Court Administrator of said Court on the 24th day of November, 1998, for and on account of the condemnation, appropriation, and taking of the parcels of land by the Petitioner herein, said parcel described or designated in these proceedings as Parcel 18. The land to which said Award relates is located in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and is described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. That the nature of Respondents Robert C. Harming, Jr.'s and Julie S. Hanning's claim and the grounds of this appeal are that said Award of damages herein appealed from is inadequate compensation to said Respondents for the value of the real property interest taken, that said Award is contrary to the evidence presented at the hearing thereon and is contrary to law; and . that the damages for the taking of said premises therein are at least $154,850. CHAMBERLAIN & NEATON, P.L.L.P. Dated: December 28, 1998 r ice Patrick-I. da on (#77318) Attorneyefor Respondents Hannings 445 Lake, Suite 333 Wayzata, MN 55391 (612) 473-8444 2 • Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No. .,, Project No. 9444) Abstract Proper ,y Page 1 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 A permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Lot 1 , Block 1, WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, which lies southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 51 .67 feet (15.750 meters) northwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence run southerly along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East for a distance of 615.80 feet (187.697 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 492.13 feet (150.000 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds West for 655.27 feet (199.726 meters) to a point on a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 95.1 .44 feet (290.000 meters), thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve a distance of 328.08 feet (100.000 meters) and said line there terminating. Also a permanent easement for drainage purposes over all that part of Lot 1, Block 1 , WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, which lies within 10.00 feet (3.048 meters) on each side of the following described line: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence run northeasterly along the southeasterly line thereof for a distance of 101 .38 feet (30.902 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 25 degrees 37 minutes 46 seconds West for 36.57 feet (11 .146 meters) based on the assumption that the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter has a bearing of South 0 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds East and said line there terminating. Also a temporary easement for construction purposes over all that part of Lot 1 , Block 1 , WINTERS PLENTYWOOD, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1 ; thence run northwesterly along the southwesterly line thereof for a distance of 34.01 feet (10.365 meters); thence North 13 degrees 31 minutes 21 seconds West for 33.46 feet (10.200 meters); thence North 71 degrees 43 minutes 25 seconds East for 18.76 feet (5.717 meters); thence South 44 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds East for 36.57 feet (1 1 .147 meters); thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 28 seconds East for 75.41 feet (22.985 meters); thence North 66 degrees 18 minutes 05 seconds East for 56.95 feet (17.359 meters); thence North 68 degrees 13 minutes 11 seconds East for 49.66 feet (15.135 meters); thence South 21 degrees 40 minutes 11 seconds East for 3.71 feet (1 .132 meters); thence North 71 degrees 57 minutes 09 seconds East for 43.42 feet (13.234 meters); thence North 48 degrees 30 minutes 39 seconds East for 35.27 feet (10.751 meters); thence South 44 degrees 28 minutes 57 seconds East for 15.67 feet (4.775 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 82.09 feet (25.022 meters); thence North 4 degrees 54 minutes 14 seconds West for 12.01 feet (3.661 meters); thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 15 second East for 21.40 feet (6.523 meters); thence South 83 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds East for 17.33 feet (5.283 meters); thence South 6 • Parcel No. 18 (CSAH No, J, Project No. 9444) Abstract Property Page 2 of 2 PID No. 31-118-23-12-0015 degrees 46 minutes 27 seconds East for 23.00 feet (7.011 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 59 seconds East for 43.73 feet (13.329 meters); thence North 31 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds East for 7.00 feet (2.134 meters); thence North 10 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds West for 21 .35 feet (6.507 meters); thence North 74 degrees 13 minutes 54 seconds East for 14.58 feet (4.445 meters); thence South 18 degrees 03 minutes 23 seconds East for 25.12 feet (7.656 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 48 seconds East for 48.75 feet (14.860 meters); thence North 26 degrees 53 minutes 39 seconds East for 7.41 feet (2.257 meters); thence North 74 degrees 15 minutes 21 seconds East for 59.69 feet (18.195 meters); thence South 64 degrees 18 minutes 58 seconds East for 4.10 feet (1 .251 meters); thence North 71 degrees 56 minutes 51 seconds East for 182.62 feet (55.662 meters); thence North 48 degrees 29 minutes 32 seconds East for 41 .25 feet (12.572 meters); thence South 88 degrees 52 minutes 34 seconds East for 15.06 feet (4.589 meters) more or less to the easterly line of said Lot 1; thence southerlyyalong said easterly line to the most southeasterly corner of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line thereof to the point of beginning. Said temporary construction easement to expire July 31, 1999. SERVICE LIST FOR SERVING NOTICE OF APPEAL OF COMMISSIONERS' AWARD PARCEL NO. 18 Hennepin County District Court File No.: CD-2485 Lin Vee, City Clerk City Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 County Auditor County of Hennepin Hennepin County Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Ms. Lisa A. Berg Assistant County Attorney Office of Hennepin County Attorney A-2000 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Lori B. Nolan, of the City of Wayzata, County of Hennepin, and in the State of Minnesota, says that on the 29th day of December, 1998, she served the annexed NOTICE OF APPEAL OF COMMISSIONERS' AWARD on ALL INTERESTED PARTIES in this action, by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and by depositing same in the post office at Wayzata, Minnesota, directed to them at their last known addresses. V4'1./' `iija,,,t/ Lori B. Nolan Subscribers and sworn to before me this�y of December, 1998. . Notary Pub 'c :..7%R- R.S.MARTINSON s , NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ; + ‘iv : mmission Expires Jan.31,2000 ,osa vvt t..012 ~15 / - 58, Pe6 (2- C44-a-W, 19e6 11. Pe740•It 01 thiPtS" t % j tot 1-4 "944 SE1171 22' :00) Pe/#01.,,, Le5COP5t." eu 4' 'ft. tit) 7mv-t- C.A9 KA-TvAtias Thr „ —WI\ A lotAZZi v, Afiej,1 C '6(-(-- re5ft 6:C• rittleot( i1/45-1-1 AlPegt)1/ • I IS C„ttry 4004,vvrttrivtoir, 17) • OW PERMIT CITY OF ORONO PERMIT TYPE: 2750 Kelley Parkway- P.O. Box 66 !#='ER '`-- Ni-i Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Permit Number: _;i 0:::::;::: (612) 473-7357 Date Issued: _- OS/1 q ; SITE ADDRESS: 4 0 6TH AVE N CH P . I N . :::1 -11 :::-7:::-12-001P, DESCRIPTION: IV `ND Ai TER I1 iN iUserPermit I yp'e LAND ALTERATION - ' ./ N p� ir REMARKS: _ -;U1-:JPc: :I lf:;_ T T TONS !F APPROVAL P ROVAL OF C.E= OLS! ! - _iN iii-`- . i AND! lWNL i:_ D_O NOT _:I ON F:E _iL U T ION . FEE SUMMARY: F,. ._e Fee .4.7P, i iia T c't = i Fee S7F, . 00 CONTRACTOR: - Aooj i,_ar= - OWNER:1 Roe---;PRT w;�- (:!_�!`�= I R�-C i I Ol`y --r : : HLA:4 'y i i,i{_ 1,::001 BELL` i' n- I E`ti R A I '-F - 2-:' 6TH - E N - 1 .L'f - BEI Pi A T NE MN )1 1 -. ._!' i i M� `L- THE UNDERSIGNED HFREPY F 2(_';_E:_:{ `._ =RMI I! 1N TO{ MAKE THE i PAI I MF`Rl !yEM_NT _ AGREE:: Ti :!i ALI Ui-IRK INSTRIC I Ci !M `LIAki_E WITH ALL CII';' OF L_ OF-`'_;,11 I ORD ,I ' 4t_�` .TF F OFMl NN_�,U T�A EU I Ln usi i t':I JDt• REQUIREMENTS . 72 1A �/ �.� - PPI ICAAIT P dITFF CIrN.TI IPC ISSUED BY:SIGNATURE LN .tom• IMF Total Fee: $ Date Received: Entered By: Permit#: #/0333 CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION • All information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) OWNER OR CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: S►}cam i le . ZIP: NAME OF OWNER: � e 1i- J �' I� )4cl NNS►1) PHONE: (home) (work) MAILING ADDRESS: eta,_0 s, CITY: ()✓pr-0 ZIP: CONTRACTOR: :�Ss..p QN,. ��c ',w� PHONE: s73 'C937 3 CONTACT PERSON: " 3- - v,�, L C— MOBILE/PAGER: -0S-0 ( MA LING ADDRESS: )3G r ( Il Pr4::4-1.-c‘,1 CITY: g)le t ,-L ZIP: ,52c ( STATE LICENSE: # ARCM I'ECT/ENGLNEER: PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: NAME: REGISTRATION# TYPE OF WORK: New Addition Accessory Structure Move Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration PROPOSED WORK(describe in detain: a:, czi 1 ' w 11'6 XCz°. S C) 446 STORIES: SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: • NO. OF BEDROOMS: GARAGE STALLS: ATT. DET. EST .MATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit . I d work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accord. . e with .- .p, oved plan. i APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: �i DATE: � —3, NOTE! }Parade of Homes events require sepa ate !-r-mit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non pe itted events will not be allowed. y\, C' ''.---- N \ / I NN \ • rs 1 n i ' / I v _. N ---- ---1\--- N N. ''..NN NN , 9'L�\9�'2'. / — — — \ �9, / ( /// // / 7 / / \\\\L)-1P\-- ..... / / / r / /i / // / / � / / / / � / / / // / / i9 L \\ ../z. / ///// / / -_-)\\\_...__ .:......___,/ / //j/// / \ ! r r.:-.) i / , /// / z. \ ofirVIA / , , / . \ _.e.. \ \ r "x 1.T V) 1 \ • o 01 \ \L\ �� 1 � l �l I o ' o N .o \ \ 1 \_ r= \ 1 1I , ^ � I J . U.) ,,. ,..1.iik 1 a-. J P. \\001 / ` _ , L _ t ` cll --r -< 0---4 - T - \----.--7-_ -__ :2,____„„_.------------,_ X `I� —•• \ Q \ i.1 TIO C� \ ../ '�-� O T r. �\ \ ,- , CD ;.1c n CD ,7 :7, ._, ft, i, % .-. 7.x , r •.o \ o crir?-7 °1V' CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices ,ti :, Street Address: Mailing Address: $�gg0 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 7, 1999 Julie Hanning 4220 County Road 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Request for Subdivision Approval Commitment Dear Mrs. Hanning: You have requested that the City commit in writing to granting a lot area variance for a subdivision of your property. The survey you provided shows a"pre-taking"proposed lot area of 5.0 acres, and a"post-taking" area of 4.76 acres,which you correctly noted would require a lot area variance. It is my understanding that your goal is to establish the value of the property taken for County Road 6, but not necessarily to complete a subdivision at this time. City Administrator Ron Moorse's letter of July 1, 1998 noted that the Council was sympathetic to your concerns about the impacts the taking might have on the layout of a future subdivision in relation to the existing house. It also noted that the City will not enter into an agreement for granting a lot area variance absent the public review process. When City Assessor Bill Davy and I met with you on December 8, 1998, we at that time advised you that the only method of obtaining a commitment from the City that a subdivision with a lot area variance would be approved,is to begin the formal approval process. Once you file a complete application for preliminary plat approval, a public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. After the hearing, Planning Commission will make a recommendation to. the Council. The City Council will, within 120 days of your complete application submittal, either take formal action to grant the variance and adopt a resolution for preliminary plat approval, or will deny it based on reasons which would be specified. The "Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution" is the formal written commitment that the City will approve the plat and area variance if all conditions of approval are met. Once preliminary plat approval is obtained, you would have one year in which to file a Final Plat Approval application. You could also choose to not proceed with final plat approval, and not incur the final plat fees. A majority of the fees associated with the subdivision process are not due until the final plat application, such as park dedication fee, final plat review fee, and legal review and filing fees. The preliminary plat fees you will incur upfront,however, include the$350 application Telephone(612)249-4600 • Fax(612)249-4616 04-- CITY of ORONO , `. :j= �, Municipal Offices "�',� re,,tip \ 0 • Street Address: Mailing Address: �`91tESKpg' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323.0066 July 1, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning 4220 Sixth Avenue North Orono, MN 55356 Dear Robert and Julie Hanning: This letter is in response to your request that the City enter into an agreement with you to approve a subdivision of your property that would include a lot area variance of 23,000 s.f. for a newly created lot. The amount of the requested variance is equal to the amount of property acquired by Hennepin County as right-of-way for the County Road 6 project. The City Attorney has a concern about granting a lot area variance without the public input process that would be a part of a subdivision or variance application process. Although the City could enter into an agreement regarding a reduced lot area as part of the settlement of claims related to a right- of-way acquisition, the City is not a direct party to the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition process. Therefore, the City is not able to enter into such an agreement with you. However, the City is sympathetic to your concern that the lot configuration resulting from a subdivision that includes a full 5 acres of dry buildable area for the new lot would not maintain the current homestead lot as a desirable lot in Orono. Sincerely, / - Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator RJM/lsv Telephone (612) 473-7357 a FAX 473-0510 w . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 Mayor/Council Report-continued Kelley remarked that increases for the Long Lake Fire Department pension plan were approved without City Council approval,noting that 80%of the budget is derived from Orono, and suggested that the Fire Department notify the City Council before future financial decisions are finalized. Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City Council should meet with the Long Lake City Council to discuss financial issues related to both the Police and Fire Departments. Kelley suggested that a prioritized list be comprised by the City Administrator every two weeks with the current projects being listed along with a time schedule to help the City Council keep current on the projects and to ensure that future needs are being addressed adequately. Goetten indicated she would like to be updated at least once a month on the various street improvement projects that are currently underway. Gappa indicated he could have the Public Works Department review traffic counts on County Road 15 to determine if traffic lights are warranted. Kellogg noted that County Road 15 should remain at the same elevation as previously, with the County Road 6 project on schedule. Concerning Ferndale, Plymouth has drafted an agreement which will be discussed at the meeting on June 29th. ENGINEER REPORT Mayor Jabbour inquired about the status of the Edgewood Hills sewer project. Kellogg stated the project, particularly the directional borings, is being rebid. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#15) ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING -REQUEST FOR AN AGREEMENT RELATED TO A FUTURE SUBDIVISION AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse stated the Hannings had expressed concern that the County Road 6 project would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future because of the right-of-way acquisition. The Council had previously indicated that it would consider entering into an agreement with the Hannings to maintain the ability to create a second lot if the lot area was reduced below the required amount. 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#15) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued City Staff has reviewed the property both before and after the acquisition of the County Road 6 right-of-way, and has determined that the property includes ten plus acres of dry buildable land. The Hannings have indicated a concern regarding the configuration of the possible new lot because of the location of the existing residence. Moorse expressed concern that if a lot area variance by agreement is granted, no public input will be allowed, and since the City is not a direct party to this condemnation procedure, Moorse questioned whether the City is legally able to enter into such an agreement. Tom Radio stated the agreement would attempt to bind future City Councils and current law prohibits that because it does not allow for due process. Radio commented the City Council is limited in its ability to give the Hannings much relief Mrs. Hanning stated no variance is being requested at this time. Mayor Jabbour noted the Hannings were offered $12,000 for the right-of-way. Due to the amount of land remaining after the right-of-way acquisition, which does allow for two lots but with an undesirable configuration, it was the feeling of Mayor Jabbour that the Hannings have lost more than just the land in the right-of-way. Radio commented the Hannings should take the worst case scenario and present it to the County, which would be that the City Council would not grant a variance. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like the City to grant a contractual variance to them or go on record saying that a variance will be denied. Mayor Jabbour commented the City Council was under the impression the last time this matter was discussed that one lot would become unbuildable after the right-of-way acquisition, which is not the case now. Flint suggested the City Council could grant conceptual approval which would not be binding on future action by the City Council. Radio cautioned against such action. Kelley suggested the City take no action. 17 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#15) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 9220 Sixth Avenue North -continued Gaffron suggested the Hannings file an application and get an answer before the hearing on September 23rd. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like some action by the City Council on this matter. Radio noted a motion was not necessary orappropriate ro nate at this time. Mayor Jabbour directed CityStaff to draft a letter to the Hannings stating the facts, noting Y that the property line for the second lot is undesirable according to Orono ordinances and causes other concerns for the first lot. (#16) REVISED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF THE TAX FORFEITED PARCEL AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE -RESOLUTION NO. 4105 Moorse stated the resolution has been amended regarding the release of the tax forfeited parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive to reflect the City Council's wishes that the outstanding special assessments on the property be waived and that the tax forfeited parcel be allowed to remain a separate parcel, subject to a covenant being placed on the parcel prohibiting the parcel from being a buildable lot. Mayor Jabbour expressed concern that the building should be condemned and torn down due to public safety issues. Kelley indicated he also was in favor of that. Gaffron noted the petroleum tanks were removed 10 or 15 years ago. Kelley inquired what impact this has had on the sewer in the area. Mayor Jabbour stated the sewer was disconnected and capped on behalf of the owner. Tom Radio recommended the City Council add the condition that the property owner waive any right to object to a hazardous building procedure with the costs being assessed against the property owner. Flint commented that it should be made clear that the City is not condemning the land but the building. Goetten stated she would be in favor of condemning the building but not the land. 18 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 19, 1998 ITEM NO: /� Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse � City Administrator's Title City Administrator ( Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North Background When the County Road 6 project was being planned,the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to maintain the ability to create a second lot. In clarifying the current status of the property, staff has determined the property includes 10+acres of dry buildable land,both before and after the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of the Hannings to retain an open meadow area,their plan for the future lot to the east includes a somewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way acquisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that,even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres,-creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures on the homestead site. This could create concerns regarding privacy, and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to the boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. Hannings' Request To minimize the negative impacts of a gerrymandered second lot on the homestead parcel, the Hannings are requesting that the amount of land required for the second lot be reduced by the amount of the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition. Impact on Right-of-Way Acquisition Process The County's acquisition of the right-of-way from the Hannings is being accomplished through a condemnation process, with efforts being made to reach a negotiated agreement on the amount of compensation for the right-of-way acquired. The County has offered the Hannings an amount based Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June 19, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North on the number of square feet of land acquired. It.is staffs understanding that this is acceptable to the Hannings if they can be assured they are able to subdivide the property to create an acceptable second lot at some time in the future. The Hannings believe that this cannot occur unless the City allows the area of the second lot to be reduced by the amount of the County's right-of-way acquisition. If the City will not allow the reduced lot area,the Hannings will take the position that their compensation for the right-of-way taking needs to be more than the payment for the 23,000 square feet of land acquired. Rather, it should reflect the taking of a buildable lot, or substantial damages to the homestead lot. Impact of the Right-of-Way Acquisition on the Value of the Hannings' Property • Because the right-of-way acquisition is not reducing the total dry buildable area to less than 10 acres, it would be difficult to make the case that the right-of-way acquisition is taking a buildable lot. The Hannings may be able to make the case that the right-of-way taking would cause a subdivision to have a greater negative impact on the existing house. It is not clear what type of value would be placed on this negative impact, since a subdivision prior to the right-of-way acquisition would also have had a negative impact on the existing house. Council Direction At its May 26 meeting, the Council directed staff to determine the exact amount of right-of-way being acquired and to work on a possible subdivision scheme. There also appeared to be some support on the Council to reduce the lot area requirement for the second lot by the amount of the right-of-way acquisition. Impact of Right-of-Way Acquisition on Potential Subdivision Staff has developed a number of options for subdividing the property, both pre-right-of-way acquisition and post-right-of-way acquisition. These are attached. Settlement Agreement There are instances where the City has entered into a settlement agreement with property owners when the City has acquired right-of-way that has reduced the amount of remaining property to less than the amount required for a buildable lot. The Hannings' situation is different from two perspectives. 1. The City is not reducing the amount of property to less than the amount required for two lots. 2. The City is not the party acquiring the property and is not the party involved in the condemnation process. The City has an interest in this process because the property is in Orono,and because the City will pay 50%of the right-of-way acquisition costs. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 June 19, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance without the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. The City Attorney has also indicated that because the City is not a direct party to the right-of-way acquisition process or the condemnation process, it may not be possible for the City to grant the lot area variance through a settlement agreement. The Attorney is researching this issue and will provide an opinion at the Council meeting. Process The normal process for considering a request to create a lot with less than the required lot area would be a variance process through the Planning Commission. For a number of reasons,the Hannings do not want to subdivide the property at this time. The Hannings are requesting the City provide, through some means,assurance that if the property is subdivided at some point in the future the new lot could be 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres. They need to have this assurance at this time because it affects the position they take regarding the level of compensation they should receive for the right- of-way acquisition. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requirement,but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Options 1. The City may be able to enter into a settlement agreement with the Hannings providing that the second lot could be created with an area 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres, subject to agreement on the level of compensation to be received for the right-of-way acquisition. 2. The Council could indicate general support for a lot area variance. 3. The Council could take no action and allow the level of compensation to the Hannings for the right-of-way acquisition to be set through the condemnation process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion in response to the Hannings'request for an agreement to allow a second lot to be created with an area of 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres. HANNING.2 r O D , gii 4: _1' LL N LL u. x,88£.,.....,. ��\ .,-.. \ ... i '(... > \ :. o 1 i\ li\y-:\� ':. J III \ , � x\\\\\ t .,\_ . \ • o - ���� ` \ \\ ?i \ \6'\ \ \ ,--- ;:\ �.,Y _ _ \ i. 0. / � \\, \ xI r I II/ // dij I. i. 4. I1 / 1 �, I\_\ 1 // `` .t . � �� - \ / / \�.�\\\vim o \ i I \ \ I c-----__ \ '''‘ \ ,...`••••:....----___---,-", - --. \ \\\It\ \ 1 Y y \ \ 1"x'1 Y ���\ 1 \ 0\ II11 \ \1 0 "ZII I 1 i !i ' "J I 11 /.. : � ; I // I / !/ / / � "%i \ it 1 • i. liP I .n- ' I, o1j. Z-'0: LL' e . ) wwr•auk _ \\ ,.._. _ __________ _ \ _,,...[77___ ..9 / 1 s , (- -...,_ -• \ -,,.\\ ;-:Lv . • . . , 1 ( ----- \\ . .. , t-,-;;;., -zt --„,. , u, .. : ',. • `2 ,i� \�\.\ I \\\\ °, i. 0_ ,....... .... . , _ (s- I\ \\\ \ _/ `\�\\\ ;a;, i / ln \ / 1 : ,. ,......., 1 1 ; \\,,_........_.,\.\...‘\ ......‘„) ,, , - .,, . ___ , ,_ ..,.._.,__..k._,_,..---.;_____-.., // ../ 1 I; f i ii; r� t 2 // / . � Ii / / �I _ � Il r\�� y) ' I ---L_ J'- Y, ...r"..,----1- . - • • t 1111 h • op. ,y '4s1: ?g LL • - 2 $ rT t- 1 \ �' i,\‘...\ Cpl • v. `!i IA \\\R\ zi,„,...--z_z----•:,.-... VI', V, Z\A\'''.2'',_ i f- V / \ \ \ `?' 1 //// a _ — rs 7i /, /� ,4e..?(." ,0i '\\lam' ) 7 / // '- 4e'•?' . / t •-r / 1/1 \t•"/1.1°. •-, \....\ ,....., ./6// 7/,--, V--‘ \ s.:-:,.-- >....--- ---.... ____z_—_.—...--.. \•:•,....\.,z...... ... „../, / i. \ \\ft)f- . _\� \\ \\ \ J \ \\\\ \Ct\ 1 .....------.. , N % ) 11 I i 1 ; ,%i/If I ��_` • I • / I � i // /i ii \ l / % 'i: / i /// / // ,•. +' it �/ //'// //';I' it �� %/ ;r\ _- 1 L,. :arta A......A.)! [ ,..:.: `-r I • , •ii t ' i ii op i.,.°f Q off. � ` 2 tr% \\-\ • -,,\ t-- 1 r- \\N...., .,..„. , : ,...,....---_, . ...,, \\ A-4' ,,, ,,, ., ,_ „.„.,„,. ,.„........„.....,..., 1 , , \ ... \, ,_ i„r„-- ,.. •-,. ,,,. . , , ,,\ \N. k -\.,...2,:._ 1‘ ..____ r\ \\ \i, r \....„„ ;., .,,,,.. \\\ \ \� /% .£': i 4 . 1 •2\/ f\\'.�i \ / \ a .\\•.• r iii,' \ \ -------\\\- --____4 , ---_—___---_--_-_ ,„ _____--___ .„,•:// i. , \ ,w, \ \ • I f I j /%/I ( , //i I ( / / I . J I I // I/ / it I i /// / ///�;�4' m o / •i-- y ,•-- y n , r I \�N x io r. ; f o m • • 0 . • • Ii' t ''\ I 1/ 7.-- � \\.•..\.l ,---.`. !1-"::.. .. . \ \\\\ \\ or ��-- f~\\V \\ &i, . \1\\\\ \ \ \\`;\ice. I \ \1 \` -�`I 1\\\\ \\\�\\\ r• i) 1 Ho/ ---r'-` / � . . :: moi / I 7 �j1 :. f/ • i Lc //�7 c� ") �\ ,\�`. , , 7 8 AL,- , v j, , ,, / . \ ---_-_-___-- -.,, \N,----- /j / / ; ' .\\ \\0,, ±-5-k.":4-1... -"---1--------- -- \\'-, --------- /_,./)/ .. \• . \ .„ ,t---__.,,, -\\ \ \..,-„,____„7._.____ -------\\-- \\ ,.. \ ` � s 1 ; %1 € f ��\ , / ! / �• I I I // / / /, .I / l/ / % , '. • / / //. I / / !/.. r IL l a; • 1 ii i o 0 - i,c711' LL. \ , 0• i k_ ‘VA\ , I ` \ - _k_-/ \\‘ ''' s . \ \ r'\\‘‘\';'‘ ' ..._-_, - \ \\`' v.-.\ /I''� \ 1 ,\ f 1 /7/................':............../ ,,, 1 -",.... ''''\ .,) / / / e,....,,,o ...0,j2S4446' .-\ /// /10& ) )? i )4": ./1//// * \\A„ "-- ( 1 aS/ imt \ c j / \ V\ . ---,. \ \\\t_-,----7,-...,-_----\„..--: ,, ,.. /la; i 1 1 11/11il / ,- - 1 I __.! I /////,t /.-",44 1 � / • I `,i si ' i • 211. . . . .„ • . 0 ,,.• el \:' . o . __________ \ .,7. _x.,%, .. 1 1 / \\\� ,\ • �,. 4(..... . \ \\\\ \. \ 36\ I, \\\A,\:‘,,.... . ),p , , \\\\.\&\,,,,..., ,t_;....:. . sti-\\\,.\\\\\ _o___.,) ,:: ,,„..,x ,,,,_... ,,e,:, ,� \\ \ 1 \`\\_. I,, ice\ \\\ 1 \.:,_.,___-_. __, \\\ '''4;-:.\. - ----------2-----) ‘\\\'\\\ ,..:- \ t „.af 1\ ry i. • • / /1/(/'/ .-it-.C.gt'F''( .i gt;,) / 7 ,7 ",-\\'•=.1.: , 7 // I, . i- I \---- --- ----:--------.."*-\.\\ ---- -- // y ' .\\ \\'A. . i /~�� \\ \ \ -......_-_-_________,_—__a___--..,...\,........., \\\\‘. \\ kk, 3 �-- \\\ 1 I %:7--:"-- --- / \1 I \ ; r j fi _�\// i f I i % /I / /r I I I//l/1/// f '.‘, ,� S j � c) �, i-.- r....,...:---_____.., ` 1�L} n it •UI' r -: 1 ' 1. �0 I L./) . .. =ii-:LL n 01 I , , i,.(.._ (— . \\\ ‘ -f• - , I /r71 1\:..,‘1\\,''' \\--...... I:, ! 1\ \\\%\k\•"....:) 1--'\1/441\ \''''!&...\ \. I/ / 7' 1y-,♦1 \i 1,/ )\\ 1i -. 1` \ ; . \t \\,...... \ //r't 1,y .\.\ \'1. -----------:_- ____I ----- ------,----- ////// I i ' -\\ r'' , l . N \ \ \f\d ( r ----- ....\ ___,- - ,. ) \\ 4:* ,,.i(0 .--- I f i1 I i ' l Ili f } moi. \ 1 i / / //l% j/ .-,!.-71,,,, ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Jabbour responded that Council was almost split. He wanted to have Council member Goetten present as she lives in the area. Flint indicated that if the issue comes up again, there will be a notice sent to the neighborhood. He suggested leaving the issue up to Woodhill to bring back to Council if they find the need to do so. Malkerson agreed that it would be best to provide notice to the neighborhood if Woodhill decides they need to have further consideration on the access issue. (#22) COUNTY ROAD 6 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING SUBDIVISION PLAN AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse reported that the subject property is 10+ acres in the 5 acre zoning district. When the County Road 6 project begins, the County will acquire a portion of the property for right-of-way. The property will still be 10+ acres but the way the home is situated on the lot creates a problem in configuration for a subdivision. The issue came up early in the discussions of the County Road 6 project, and Council indicated they would consider some sort of approval of a second buildable lot on the property, if the right-of-way would reduce the property to less than 10 acres. The issue has become that the lot they want to create, because of the location of the existing house, is less than 5 acres even though the right-of-way does not reduce the property to less than 10 acres. Normally Council hasn't approved lots less than 5 acres in a new subdivision. A survey showing a potential subdivision indicates that one lot would be 4.17 acres. The Hannings wish to keep a meadow with their existing home. Even without the right-of-way taking, the lot would be substandard. To create two 5 acre lots, gerrymandering the line is necessary, the meadow is lost, and the lot goes behind the existing buildings. Since Council had indicated a willingness to consider options, the Hannings are looking for direction as they are currently dealing with the County. Jabbour stated that Council took the position that the City would not cause the Hannings to have an unbuildable lot because of the right-of-way acquisition. He did not understand that the location of the building would be a problem. He asked about obtaining additional property from an adjacent parcel. Moorse responded that there is an NSP easement along the back of the property. Kelley asked how the property would have been subdivided without the County right-of-way. Hanning responded that he had the property surveyed 6-8 years ago by Coffin and Gronberg, but is unable to find the survey that was done. Moorse confirmed that the property is 14 acres but only 10+ dry buildable acres. 24 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Hanning noted that this is the second time the County has taken a portion of this property. Jabbour felt the Council should take the position that anything the County has taken should not render the property as an unbuildable lot. Kelley agreed, giving the example that if the County takes 1/4 acre, only 4 3/4 acre should be required for a buildable lot. Hanning asked about driveway access. Kelley thought the County would appreciate one curb cut for both properties. Kelley suggested a small outlot on the larger parcel to serve both parcels. Flint asked why an outlot should be created rather than granting an easement. Kelley responded that it would be up to Hanning to decide which option would be better. Jabbour noted three problems as follows: 1. If the County is taking part of the property, is there still a buildable lot? The consensus has been that whatever is taken out will be reduced from the required lot size. 2. How can the City make the assurance that there are two buildable lots to the Hannings? 3. How would the final subdivision be configured? Barrett asked if the concession of reducing the 5 acre minimum by the amount that the County takes is a form of compensation. Jabbour thought it would be. Flint asked why the Hannings did not want to proceed with the subdivision at this time. Hanning responded that if he did the subdivision now, it reduces his future options. He may choose not to ever do the subdivision, his property taxes are affected, and the value of his home may be lowered. Kelley felt the Hannings were taking a risk since the current Council could not bind future Councils. Barrett stated that to get some type of binding contract, an agreement would have to be made with the County. Jabbour added that the right-of-way was only 22,000 s.f. If that were divided between two lots, a reduction of 11,000 s.f. is very minimal. Hanning responded that it may not seem like much but could make a difference. Moorse added that the right-of-way is proposed at 1/4 acre, just over the top of the berm. 25 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Jabbour suggested Hanning work with staff and come back to the next Council meeting on June 8 with a better plan. Gaffron should find out from the County exactly what will be taken for right-of-way. Hanning asked if a park fee would have to be paid if he subdivided now. Jabbour responded that the maximum would be $4,900 for the additional unit. Gaffron explained that if the value of the second parcel is $61,000 or more, the maximum amount is $4,900 for the park fee. (#23) REQUESTS BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE Moorse explained that Mr. Crear, owner of the property at 1980 Spates Avenue, would like to purchase the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive. Council waived the sewer assessment by resolution when the parcel was released for sale to adjacent property owners, based on the fact that the lot would not be buildable. An additional special assessment of approximately $5,000 was discovered that is related to legal fees incurred in the review of a planning application from a prior owner. The City was successful in fighting the application but was unable to collect the cost from the prior owner. Mr. Crear is asking to have this assessment forgiven. Crear added that he could not combine the tax forfeit parcel with his homestead propertybecause u the mortgage company wouldn't allow it. Moorse suggested a covenant be drawn up to address the issue. Kelley asked what Crear planned to do with the tax forfeit parcel. Crear responded that he planned to plant trees. He added that the University of Minnesota was interested in using the property as a test site for bio-remediation and how chemicals react with the soil. Kelley asked how Crear intended to block the road noise as the building currently provides a buffer. Crear responded that the existing fence would not be removed until something was built to take its place. Kelley asked for a sketch plan from Crear and stakes showing the property lines. Crear noted that Hennepin County was going to take a portion of the property. 26 couN.ciLmEsTigg,QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAY 2 6 1998 DATE: May 22, 1998 ITEM NO: 61` UV OF ORONO Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse // City Administrator's Title City Administrator C� Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North When the County Road 6 project was being planned, the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to maintain the ability to create a second lot. Staff has recently clarified the current status and post-right-of-way acquisition status of the property, and the Hannings'plans for subdividing the property. Maps showing these are attached. According to staffs calculations, the property includes 10+acres of dry buildable land, both before and after the right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of i he Hannings to retain an open meadow area, their plan for the future lot to the east includes a sc. iewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way aL quisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres,creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to be run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site, and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures. This would create concerns regarding privacy,and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. To avoid this situation, the Hannings are requesting that the City support the Hannings' initial subdivision plan even though the second lot would not meet the minimum lot standard of 5 acres. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requirement,but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance at some point in the future. This is contrary to the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate the Council's position regarding the Hannings' request, and to direct staff accordingly. __ . V ' \ . + • may � / , ,.. „. r . , 1xc z \ --°ow—m .-.....tzet .r �aa . I) (\\ iri ___________/ , ,r. 0:,, \N. -,4 - ' 1 - 1 ,,. !.#1 v. \I /7>\ 7 , NM ,,,r.,. . ,. , , .. , a 3- . A 1 x— _\i,,,,, , , _ ! ,. .., __,,,4,4, \ lit . - 04.L-- . '- i\'ljk. \ ' ( J':- ' , ^n ���0 1 i e. vVy.. , 0 1 \,, kNft 1 Sr :. N \,_. :(4.4111% \ , . .. ... .... ,.....,„......7"----44-: _ft \. ft,,,ikt ‘ %. ' 1:\\- 't-- 0.i ft... ,.. ... is 7/ 12 \ '' 'N \*.,,Lictifttsra\'' itt4007 i IA 9 fA ' L" 114 Vt. i. ;;44A\1 10412 4 L' '.1 ' 7 6* i-, ! _ 1.,„..,. .\\ -. Ifthme.....::- - --_—_m.-x-s0A7---rmf —i 1 ._ __ __! I „___ __1„.. .wr ___.7 . 1r I ,i ego. ° Pri A AT ..atWihIl. 1/1.,MbytAllet* % i::. , • 0‘--,,,.. CA ' j k' 10 : *el Nivel re . Dv- A 0 \ mp.40 . ; , ,, . -:. : . ..4 ..s.. ,.-• \ .‘744-1 • #:4A,S el ._, , _,_ , c•-dcL 04 ,. . r irk . ,--.4 , /,.„:-/1 . 1:VW 0., .b ‘ Lei ‘;ttai, -- — ..3.-,.. ':-.5,, isr,_m___L.L./..7,Tilia_ *,fir . 070 (:::'_ ' - opiv".‘„ -",___- __,K, ,. . • vii:,-, it r-":„,-- 41P- -- --- i 1 ,---- -- (- --Aiierrie 4:\, 3. j:;14b) Li Nipliv-'1--- Nuiw... 1.. c< % _ 1 11:;*404 r:r- IVitrAr 1111 - • I ''' 4 I 1 4T- V" c''_.A01 A. \Lk, -V 1,,4/,:tH;.:- _}./,,eldirttil„'2 _.;,-1144;7 01/eft:1)41 4\lI,\‘46*:i..)._/_7:- 0 ! ... ..: '4 isl ,g7 - fr.- ....---,g or J 1 s. . • -- —IS" - . \ p iN 4 . irgy,„ 4 , . 0 , iii x, _.;64 HiN „_.7: dr/ :aik. 4,, ..:. . / '\\[ .j 0• ‘S ''' A.S*01°\\ -/ ',. °>?\k. t. .'' Ni:ifl:re 4r*b..if* . < • \ fi. 'I.:'*N., . :: ! 4 r leige AN . 4 *4*.V.,.1, •'• (-\ \ �' c NN log4Witl#) , °.,: -.P#4 Pa\\' c---- t .. 4gb.% :,11/4%zi.s0,5, - 7di 'Au , ''\\ ' -! 11414,. .... .., -ii•--.... -----%-vg-4.04 .7W, ./6% ‘i \\'‘\ ,-,-,_____ rnivA...d.ow valoti1/44xt...A. ,i4.. , I 7__,...../ \ ,:,s, \\: : � _ c Mt, --:‘-.---..-NN. ---‘, -,.. • #418 • k** . 0 Valli)ClYCli \ ;.. ( , /5/ 1 ;441 4 NI%liook , e , 4 .---11 . „ rs, , , J. ..., x 1 � .I lv-: i% X u �` I . ra �1 0 �• �M tJ4AL No k , w o . gi PO t w •OU • a At, ' .ellMOVikiaissiabi IV: 1 r A . -4/re 1,1„ „), ., „4,004, ., . Nit 0 z,,,,.: ,014 64:A .,..§c .4iiiff 70,:z 11 . 5/ 7- II . e A'.V WI fi .6,11 ' ____ ', / 7 -----7. , ,t A -----s\ 6. 401 . r w ._11 ) 1 : 7 i 44 if" ‘titkr4400,1464si I 1 ill 1 \ ''' X Ili I • G:cy $F 4ZA06101 :.3 ito 1. . ( -7.-- ,\ i '6$ N 'II: C).., ‘!PI \ 0.,;.....4,:%40 . 11, ,,, , ' I 1..% P 0 '-' ' ois -. ?;�. /,, ,.,y � ,f r fir,. ...._..-/ %awr P 0 ,,,.:„_.:1„..„..„-_. • ,:- ,i ,, . \,., li__, ..„ _.... 0 ‘- / lit ., ,,, ,,, t., 5,. _ 00 -- i . c, * - -ve. I", . '14 L. %i ,/ 1.:.• ' . iiminol 0 0 --) ...\ . q. \., lr . V‘ .0 • yp - f , �f`�, R4 , 1 1 --, ,- 1,.. .„, ii, -% ‘. -.,.„ , .14ii.. . ‘ _i rh, 01 11 . u1\. , a J oil '401.. 00/ 4441: '.,,,,..\ a p . . ,,,,_ ,i. , i, . . :__. __ •. ;I:I ,,- - - alga III►•'-.. •' O v:.Y,, 1R!!'u. ?1' _ 'J '' 111 �i- W wimilliiiiiiiie- ' " ' 101111.. l i1 Nikor N I ( 1 \I1 \ \ \ , / l \ \\ \\ \\ . ---------J------- - \ N __:________T_I } \-. -.--- ,---"...----7 .-_,__.______--:----------------------*------,,_, \ \ \ \ \ 7NN \ \ \ \ 7 7 / ----...._/ /"--4 .....1. . -. \ \\\ . V .. ----1-"------ '\N/ Z ,... .,--------- N\\\ / 7 \ ‘ ,„ ______ ..___,_________ \\N„....„. ..._________.____ ,...., ,..,... _____ ___ _ ,. ....„. ,. .___, ____ __ „_ ______ , , , , ____,,\, __, _____ ........, _.,.... , , , ,,, ,.,. ______,, „....., \ N„,. ...._ _____________,___ ........_. / . ____ N \\ .,.,„.,.__________________ ___ __, .0Q.,, ,,,, ,,,, , , ,,,.......„____ , .... \ .....____ ___ . _ / e oto ito / / 7 1..1.-... \ / // / ii) e ri'l I / z/ — ..\-\ \ -----1..... ) ) 11/ b r\.,,,,_,,,-‘\ ....__ \ 1 \ / / / 4° ,,,p / !y \ / / / o, b /</ // / // / i \ .A.R.44.,.:i.f.'N.1:\ 9, \ 1 ) / / • / 7 7- / / / / ,.* k? 1_ V/ / / I £;tir5 rl•l ' • j ., Z" / 11 /I/ E f ( ( / / / / . / \ /W iiiI„ 2r 7- / / / i 7 y • / /\ I'tthh ! IA\ I\ } f \ t;44 '7�J : Sry* i /.---- ,i' a �/_____.-----'lb �b� • / / I\ 1 !..•05,:,..,,.. a1 '�If::,'l; ~i1i Yk J wt°l�ay tTT ;':F�IOr— \i• t�fM'y4Y� ,r.,—J -/ // / / / / / / Rb / s.......,,,,,,,.......„......,:::,______ // / Iib l / / f i, op Z . I E. _ WM 3.!9.03 \ \ "; -\ ,Ab,\ ..,:\,:1,,,,.,. 3:.. \ r-T - V:, . I =(___ \ ' ..".. 1 a •O 1\,\ 1 \ i--"*"\\ \\ \\ -14)•,.% t � ,'�` /q,...._. ,1 . r----.. \, tv,-,,, i \\\ \\\ \ r %// �/ / \\" \I \ '; j l l l I I / / ------,----3 \ '''f', ., y / ��/ // ,yr t 'i1 1 / / fir`vp mo i/ // , ,' . ( Istir l 1 1 / • // % s::: ., ` I I �` _ /�// // \ , P \ ` l\\\\\ � L \ \..\‘.,..,..... // r +� .4/ //// // \' \\ ,``Y;. - \\ \\ // / i \ \ \ \',,, \\\ 40\ ,, ri--„ ,...___ ___., . -N . . ..,......_, ..... ., \ \ 1 II \ oti N , .............. i \ , \ 1 1 /I .., I I 1 11 / . . I X a r / . , I 1 i 1 viiii;li{ l � ....,„,.. '� / l l l iii / . OS'OCt M A1.00d M 1 • , Y '1 r 0 111;. Ili ' Lw /47./1: 1,4$\/::11/1..13 \ U `Y \ \ \ \ ----- . - '��� fill/319.05_..........a"........:„... � \ \ • ••• \‘',1.-Ti4... '[ /\/: 1 I 1 \� \1 li �- ,,,,;7_,.?.:j I i(.._ i \ \*\ ' % --5 \‘\ • t.,. l'— N';.,,\: ,..\. \\\,,,\-. \\\\\\ \ .0..i,: c:Ct.! 1� I 1 J�\~ / / \\\\ 1\ \1\\::: �� 14.i. / / / 1 / ir 'aim ...7:..:......_–__jeremommageooMill, .,•.;. -s.7.44%.M \- J Ii / / 1 / / ,,;,,,- .,5%...1 ks „c= �\ N \\ \ 1 ''., 4 �' on % //' %/' �%J '•J. /`' ., // /,'— - )1.5) \ 1 Jr\\fir'. 9, 6 S I` i /i i i ` i1 +,' 1 1`�a ' / / j/ 1 \\ S} , / _I k � \\�_ \ ---- \\‘;‘,, :,�J' 7 // 41 \\� \\r,, 1---_�_ \\ ��Yj/ / — \\ \\ \\;..\\,..................._ • " , ...- L. ' N \ - A \Ni4.,i i 1 4.. :4) . ------t \ \ ) 1 I I i /a \ AA s_s ,.. y. I 1 i Op � � i• � I � \ \1 1 j1 11 / g I1 Q 1 r x l r i / \/ , ` I I ' 1 I I •�//� I N. ;yj , L. 1,_ I / ) I %/ // / ',, ,. - CD I '4%.** / / / 1// // , 1\ i l , 0.0.M...00d M .f ! ILI t '. r • ^� U. q . . WIMP a.rs.os \ \..9 \ r-T 11i 1 � \ 2 \\\,\ ,, ,\\,..4.,). .. kI \ \\ mo.. \ tni ,\ ,,,,,,,„:„., M r \\\\\\ \` : I \\�\\\\\�N --Y )r \-- ,�\\ J . ...--- \\ ' 1 \\v..';'1 \ • - " $1. /,..,4c' --- -- --i Ai // / / ----- -- --- ....._ ......_ _________./ \\\\ \,,\....,\\.\, \-1::,,,,,, . \\ \ \ .',.*.,. . 1 ri 1 /tj/7 ,,,,, - ..------- : --Z.-2 — .--"i 'S \J 1:4:. \ sti '.W 7,.. 71.256.//if//r, ''.' ,tiff. fyi) ) )/ /• .\,\ it\\I • . , .,040 ,..,•.. ,• ,1 • , gl (Zi / /7 \It_O, / / / /i \\\" , \,':,; .! K.4........\\....›,... "-•---:::----_Z-7..z.... k‘ .---- ...- i" / /// "..' 4 \ \ \\l,,,, ..:. ' \ V _ y / • k s \N,. '--------:::--- —: -----\\. \ \' '''',. � \ \ \ \ . \ / . 1 1 I ►+pi\ 4 I / � d I I z I x r r //r�� // I - g - 7 ,I1 R/ llT !r / /�j 1 \ / I/ I l 111 / / w. t' - _ ., LA I /i //ii % �� " cl o / / j/// — c•-- (P i‘ it N IIm r I .--7! 0 L__ _-___----...-• k ; � oro M.os.00a M C: - ( I N1r S , o• . , .....g. , i.. .Q... I '. LL.-.. u.:•9 0 - c.).! . ---N win,3.L9.0 S \ \ ...:••• ‹i - — --. ' ..—..-• ...-A --‘ -- k ‘\ - 4 \\ ':”.•Y! • \ \\*-. ir— •' / I 1 I : I 1 1 : ,..(._ i qo ‘iit W. \\,n •.;_ C "-• \\ \\k •i '4V.1\\ ;a ,\11 ,:41.-....„... . , \ A 4,\,\\,..,„; . ...----. k\\\, \\\\\, \ \ \\\ ...... -- ----- a.-.-...- ) ' v \`\\\ / / .. \ '(I •: /' -IT ---- . ' \\ \ \ \ ''.-:. 7 •Z' /- / 0 /' / \\ ..) \ - \ I 1 / A° / i- -----. __, \' ., ,,,,,, \ •„:,.7,.. , / • I I / // -- -- --- --- -- --- ' '.-:..)' \ 1/) / 1 -------- ----- ,... .. .A‘', \ — ik / / , / ------- ..------..":".,..„..;:-...e.;:i;.N...,:cv?...,./..,.:91/4'mai,,,•,..06*'. / / / zi , • '1.`'F,. . /1/ .1 / / ':,%,-:-,---- t• 4,-4,7%10 --, \ \ \ i\v,° .',, ) • ) , \ \ ‘ I 4 4 / /r Joe,7.,. If 1 / / / ' I'm • . . i ft' 1 1 ...6t.p',....,,i..( • i'' , • 1 r, •-", 7, /7 , e. , 1 • / .x.. . •, / // i i if Nr.,,f t% / 1 I gffi - / / // / /-/ Z - , V ..•"••••••- - ... / / I ------ A 6 -:.; k ' ,i‘l i ' - t41 \-•-•kk, \ \ .,\ 4. , \ .., .......... \ :' A\... . k \...'-- ----:•------=------ \\...\.ks ---- .--- / /// /* ji \ \ \\ i -------- -------'------------------- -N\ \ -----.---- / /// / 7 i ' \ \\ . • •. ..ssl ••s. ..„ '•. •• .' / / // . ' .• \\ ..••. •............"'......•••••::::......••......:::j7::::: \ ,..,:....."1 ,. .Y.V- / / • A • A A\10:• i.... .00.. /..." i . ....'... .. ......•••••••........ ''''''''...••••• \ ''., ........','.....:..\......" . .. r .... ••• \ A\ ..* .."Er T.,4. :k.: \ \ \\ ;ik.. \\ \ti•::• NN \ \ \ "'..:;::::------ ......._..----.,,1\\•..,_ ., \ -: N '7 • ---.- \ \ \ ' 1) I i ............---.- \ \ \ \ I / \ • .7. ' /---- - .' = c f f • 7 f / I il f y /, il i po 1 ; I / it ; , / . , . 1 . . i i I / ' / ,,-- - / 1 • \ / i , / / / // .•• 44 / " N ----— i 1- i ---,....„... J'.. F. :t L.__ _:,------- - :.. ..? -WOO/A.0%004 PI . • 411: t. .. 1: •5 1: .- - . . : i R.(i E x - ,•! c • 41) • ' z- '9 —\ n V — :! W111.313.0 S \ \J ..t.. • \ \\4'4`,... \ . '\\ 1 . VA, . \ • \\\\\ \ . .n \\\ \ \ \ \\\\ t.. 10- .-- \ f-'" \\\* .:!'' .:, \ \ \ \, �, �\\,,\ •\\\\\ \ ,i / \ tr i i % /4', % /.'-' �`i i/ \\ �.-J 1 \\. `� iii:.: o � II / / / / /,k+ f r \ I .. / ,/� 'g r a4 art 9'1 \<Z \ e // i / //j+'�/'� " i?%�' {=}' \ \\ \\ '1 `\ is I I: )1;11,// .. I* . \I )/ / A rW•`': • . a s / 1 ;� - I , 1 / / �'� \ \ ; , i I i // \ - \ _ \\�''\�/ / l/ a, /e/ / \/ ''''// ' // / ' .-\ '\ \\r At:• • ' '�Z�� =_--- \\\�\��--�/ // \\ V°;.' x1.' \ \� \,� / \ \1 "ai••. I \ \ \ / i ��— \ .1 \ \I \I V 4*Iej 7 0 \ / 1 / /I / // . .444 � l ll// / / � 11 .. I � rte\ 1- I ---''- ,,\ O ---------". x L_7 0YO0 M.033104 N N • :5.1.: uI 9 ;, , ,•,.. , §, • ., : .• ,,, - ' .•iiiri .• N 1 -,•,., ::§..• :8 ,,,,). 4'..'. .1.. . ,... . .*:. • a -,.. .;:. ,.:".. 1 • t, )( - .; .; .. . I t'l -- ...1-,- t:: . a 0 . • ...,,.....„:40.zw..7.._. ...i. ........ 1 1) 1 ..N ,, . .' i / ------------- - -1 —1 , 5--, „ 1 ....1. ‘'...• _..,_. • 7/ / iIi1: Z.7 •-' 1 " 0 # - / / //I / / 0 '.1 ' t"C ofr . • // / / / / / // . ---, 1 , \ .3:"•"Ps " / / / // / i / . e ' / / / /• i / • • I . . . ••• -41".' / / / / // 1 1 • I / • I , -/ • I iir ji • -------. ' / 1 T 1.r I 1, 1 , , . \ \ \ \ . .......„--- . : -..---. \ Vi 111'1 \ \ \ .....-__.....--- ,. ...,. N • -------..,.,, N , \ \ , . i.,...______----__-_____}..„).,e.k.. \ \ N i,• , •:1,7,.. \\ \, . ,\ \ \ ‘ .it„...:: . \ N -----":"-------- '''-------`, \ \ \ \ ‘ ---- . '1. ------------ i:. / /.... ""-- ''''''''''''' \\''q•-I )--:--:"------s"----:"--------.-...._---I-."----"-- ----- •.1.1i,\\. \ / / /"..2:7„...11........---- k\\:\ `N.N.____ -::::;"•••---....._________.--!•, IA \ // ...,.....---- ••••••,..`,....:„.\1.N\ *."--- \ ' \, • / / ////' ..../.."- ...„......:-•••".......NN:\;‹,...,...„.......... ----- ---- ----.... . '41\\ \ \. di. di //,/ //7 2------ •,_k\-,..\\, ..-----Z----7-1::,."-----.,---- ' -:..:,*;\\ r\ •\ / /#4 / / / Is"'N-\\X 7..\\ \ X\\ / ----- .:.,ii:,:i •\\• ,--- / , , i ‘k ,. . J.:iiii 7, i/i{7 (.:. ' • • • -:,‘..P9 / '/ 7 / • V i 77 . ' ''frA\ , / \\ N ‘--- 'i;)c.;• t-•.)"...)V-% / / / I V ''' .1.'j.,,\\ k . \ N `,... rialairi. t I.:.•:><2....vo--- z / / I / / ..,-- \ ,. 6• •. \ '!.,::',.:1•,', \ ' A.s... I. ‘. .. V'S' • ..r. . ‘ .., -......_.......- ..// ---------Z-----/---• 1 /I I I 1 ' .,Z,org-, 1 \•.6-,, \.. :-.,........... ._._z--;._.--- --------- i_ e / / / / ..rei -..,', \ .\ r\. , \ ...-------- / ,10 '..7g. \ •\, \r \\ --'. -----. .--.--- 7.1*. 0 1 I .." .,..,. \ \ \ ,\\ 1 • % , _......., ,.... c / .7 , C--- , ;:.. \ A\ \\\\ / . .:4:1\ \ \ \ 0 .\\% I • \ \ I' 1,1•4- \ 7,\\ \\‘ \ \\ --'.-,../ -----"—'' ,„, \ \ \ \ \ . • . ' ''''',!';' \\ \A ..-NVN--.. \ • \ \ \ \ ‘ 1 ,... \ \ \ / \' r uP \ \\ \ I: \\,..) ...,...,,,..: \ " IC,If` \N\\ \ \\ \IH ,- ...\ 1.i /----- ...\\ ''':,..;..q\ ',,\\ •\\\i,\ / \\ v,( \ N ' .,..1`..',.. ,• • ',..,?..-., \\t'.,\ik - \\ • \ \ :1:;:;\\<\,%,:'• .. --„,..) • ----„,....,.-----,i-,-,1 . ---V -1 \ . '. ' ':'., '.... . \ A ! 1 1 I. . .. •. . - • '.1 • . • .-xf.ii:\\...• \. \ .---- ., 1 -/ 1 / . . . ' -- . '...%. . Vi .._1 • -,,,,7. _....._...._ _i_J \ :.'..::, ' 7.: -"N •.,:,,,,.,7 \ \ss ----- S 0.57.E 414.14 Z. • . lb 1, :41 • •• . . . .:33• • ' • .0 i 4 .1f i. • .,.. . Pi-'1 1.-.! ... - k ::. . , N .3- .. . 1.; :-. • . i' :: . _ N ,,,.. ',... I -,,,,.._ 1 .,' /I / ..-----------------, ...4 / .....' I / ' • ,.. 41./ . / / I / // I 1 1 . / . • I / I / / I I .1 I • il i ii 11.1 a., i f f f ) -...., ,:„.... . ,. ----_ _ , f , 0 1 T 1 i IS ,ii 1 1 (. \ \ • . \ \ \ \ ....,. N . , \ \ \ 1 ,. \ -...... li ,... .... , •.,,,. , / , -------__________,.----2.7-- ibl,,,,,,,,____—_-----_-__—_—____ ''4::.6\\ • \ - ' / ,/47,7 /z -------- \\\N :,,._,------:-._.-:_-_—.------=----------- ---7.-- , . -.+1,'-!:;\\ ..\•\ / Pia.: / / /,r ---- ,‘-'\-\' . '-\ \ \N' ; ; , „st-.. 3\ - \ ////2 / /// 1 '.:...... --\ -,.. „•\\ / izr.,..d f , \\ , ,„ / // / , ,----N 1 4,i• .14':'' 1 1 ''' r : -----. •.$4i \\ $ 'Z' / / 1 4 I,Ix i )/ lt;O: L 7i- / .7 ' . . • • . .1.I.;1, / / / 7 / '._•-• ..„../ '',(''t-07. , ( .1- •...; ...-- _ / I / .i.:.'64V1 \ --_ wi:1%-4150r:,--• ' ----,4'-,- / / I / / ',.-, ' \ N '-----..... .1-;-', -- itt,.!. ;,----- / j 1 / / #,- i i , -1---/--/—;j• •:•i" • I. ---i44 ',."'i ..„------- " •V / / / / le /zr • • -- i i / / / ;:i.W.f.;• ' ------- --- -- \ ( --, "NMI -- _– - - –/-- // I / I - •••:1,7„ C\ (.....i \-- :S,-....._________-:-w-::::__=.--t'–'------- , , , , , .4' \\. \ A 16 ' ---- i / je / / / , 1 n /---' ;..,:' \ \\ \% \ .\\\ ,,,,,/ / c_f_-• `,... 111/4541V--: _ 1 1'. '::',...,\ \, \ ,‘ ( .i'gi \ \ \\\\ \\\V '---- --- \ \ \ \ I: ' '''','.61,,\\ \,R A ,-----„CyI \ \\\\\ \\ 1 ' • '•:•:'''4 \ W\\\ I \\ .\ ( '.. \ \ ) J %-- '\ \\\ \\ i • ( -- ' ' .',T: \‘\ A\ .- \ -T--, \ ( . ----„---i- 1 -. . \ ---"c) •:.:.....:.,\\ \\\\\ \\ „...) \„............. ---,11.1 . & 7 1 til i I I \ \ \'' --- ,\\ • ...,,,C0 -- • • ' \ I I / - / --- . .•-.'",',' \ \ N--- s or E 414.14 . . . . • .:13 . . • el . • .0 . • cc:.. ., ,.. ..,: ,,. u_... . u:•g 0 z Win"3 49.0 S 1 i ki I • ....„.....__ •---....„. l\\.\•r.;.c.4..\\.\.. . ./ \ \ I :( \ ' .. ,.. 4 . / . t i / V- . , \ •.,••••• \\,,,V„ ,,,, (--7,-- ,c‘.\\ ,,:.::: I--- . ., • , \\:\t': , A\ \ •••,,.„.i.,,t.. 0 , IN \ \ / ' 7‘\ '' A\\ \•••i')/ ;. 1\ \\ \ \\\ .--4-V---- ) I /"'\ \'\\\\\\ '''',• . i N / ___,.., ----*•-...„.2. .,,, I.. 7," ....':57" / / \\\\. 7 v 7"v 7 ;, i.//• — ) I 1 1/fi,, /v ----. , •i I /1 // 1 7--I-----.7.----- .,• VI / 1 ti' / i l''' / 1 / -''''' , ...-----..<.,----.t.,410.,rfi;---,, ..--- , ' • •:..—:.. / '..-- / 1/ / A,....-40:4,,,•.: 1 ,",I . 1 1/ / l' e4;4.- . . . / // 77 ...rfvr„.,. .'0'/-( - i 4 t , j • / z _---- . ' / \ .",. '. - • •. °I j / // i,top •••-m` , \ i \‘ l' / -/ --- - y' $ '-'\' ; J --- \ - , \... •.....• - •—_• • \........\...\.\...,._\ \ ' i //,//,1,/ / -\ \. , \ ,. , _- - -,, / 1/ i / , \ \\ ..•,- ... . _______—______ •••„;:.-„NN......._._.„---- z ../// . \\ :: ..1 —_-_-_:-_—_---------2-_---1-7---=•:-...---- \\-,,\ -, ------- z , ' . ?____ --I-2z._ — --..,,,sx......:„.•• N.------,....„-----__,-----;,,/// \ .\\li,.:,..,...,... ----- --__ -... --..----t— _.- ,./.. , \ • \\ :..,..c,.. , 7- , \ , .............,..._. , x,.... --___.____--..-_--, "•- \ . , .,ic.,...%. Ni \ \ \ 7 \ \ -\ / / / / ------------- \... - " \\\ \17;-;• , x --................. ,....- , • .. .----- ) 1 \ \ . I .,s'c i" % - • / ,W ,, f ------------- .1 I 7 / i / / / // 1 / // . • . -' . . ,,i '• %i . / 1 I '• _ / ;I / / / /// / / 1 / .-.•- •' i / i I/ .-• ' :I ----, ------- 1 j. ' 1 -----, J' •L_77-2',... -_ 1.. ...1,„ • . :. .3,:: woo*.osso.o.14 .. . • ., , .. '' C -1'.: .;..• . : ... . . • ili 1 • , i. ...i. ....,ri 0. A .. .,,, i Oo otN I II C._O ` o .. d1 O1 ,nN.n c c M Z O 1-n.y . C Cn.0 O cLN " v •C_�U o \ O �t- I +0. N'." c N N - s o moc �o a) 0 ' o c .c ac Z d' cO � •�fr1 0 O 0 N 2 ( Z O -5.- Zw "•c � to II cu t_o �� 4 w , .. = ,...... s ot cn o c o c \ G z Z O �• c 8 o 1 y Z oaT _ a 1 r N c a) o c 3 at \ c to 15 I i t c o a 2 �! 0'J Q E �P\ a 3 a. t i N N �\ o (fff U rn °. -L = o • z •• 1 •E 11 1 \ lV • a a 3 0 t \ j CY C2 s f — \ C , Z Q 1 IT) ah — - — Ct O t H • \• �-- bl'bib _ M,LSaON-� � U' 41111 \ - ILII oI I \ MO * vP O II o O \ sm +- -I- \ u Z I I • a'•c oNu+ 0 H w oI10 L oO \\ O� • ISO m o w • _ d o • _ O Z \ "' cZ M c ' \ O N O ' II w o � L otu \ 2. 3 0 t �'O o oo . N w zrt` • I\ •� \ Q • 0 1 ` I1 M Z \ = TU` ` Z N \ U (L` 0 il'-- o 0 T; \ w \- c WI I 0 (V t0 c -L._ 0 Q 3 c \\ o �\- c �?\ N • M crl V W 0 UES `�•\ t . o'6 \ - a`iw. \ , . ar til c0 W Z Cr �^ \ o '`—'(-" E (n I I O Z Y.. 3, \\ 0 Z \--( i; s N ZI I w 3 0 VCA �,- �i?, / - z ai \ I \ c0 m w o \ o cu VI I Co cu Ui £ \ h 0 b f.4 +c co .- c — _I I 0 a' 3 3 V / '� :p �j3 m = ♦, a a� I ci +_ o CD o a o t • o 0 W c o •E o • ,i TN..' c • d . Z _I 0 Z \IA. ? 6 . _ ♦ 41 ' w .� z o N 2: I!� 0 o k 4., 0 ll1 � , w o t Mi � � N � _ dN. lo w )1 •1 o r 080€1 • -— -.. = , J z ofj A N o • ; \N1 Ob 9001 No 00 2 r co% (1' ,i I • Z 1 Q, o <( --J fi p I co .I_ —c- . cp Cr) _ w - i CV tn I ,\ I an J 2 ca - p/ c a w o at o I O Z �9� C ,g N y, rn l o L� APs,-- —'' 0 3 .� COUNC fL �QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAY 2 6 199 8 DATE: May 22, 1998 ���� ITEM NO: A CiTY OFDepartment Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse // City Administrator's Title City Administrator C� Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North When the County Road 6 project was being planned, the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to maintain the ability to create a second lot. Staff has recently clarified the current status and post-right-of-way acquisition status of the property, and the Hannings'plans for subdividing the property. Maps showing these are attached. According to staffs calculations, the property includes 10+ acres of dry buildable land, both before and after the right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of the Hannings to retain an open meadow area, their plan for the future lot to the east includes a sc aewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way aL Lluisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres,creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to be run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site, and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures. This would create concerns regarding privacy,and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. To avoid this situation, the Hannings are requesting that the City support the Hannings' initial subdivision plan even though the second lot would not meet the minimum lot standard of 5 acres. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requirement,but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance at some point in the future. This is contrary to the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate the Council's position regarding the Hannings' request, and to direct staff accordingly. 1-.) , i- i!:...\, I li-11 ‘, - \V \‘• s'' -I- t 1:::_------ '............s'. / r--- _-_-___Ji .,-. l '.: ) *i 9'SA 41k i% .- . 2 ' 1 i ----- ' '°:.'''‘.** &ZVI i:i i. /0°' 1 -------- 71t4 ci 7 trr: 1 , o ' _ �. * Vox. ' � CJ's+ Ag ((.. 1 1 -1V ‘\ ( ' ii z I. Vt4 (\ . ' . . i 11 ori ; r- E _. :21.----- - , . -%1 1 u� y ii . o '______ ' zwil Ak. i' igo *f _. ii. .a ` r SO m 41 \ . 444/1 ...:..... __>. ( \ -- ,1 i oak i. 1 . :,,..\ \ . /4. \ .,,. .. _.. ...;._:,r.-----,, -, \, 1.4%.1N*Rt., f .-, 1 \— • I,,)) \ \.. o 'N %L.. .1140-,,,r-ki Vi.%-,,!, ::. 0,. .-i `1"---14, ---- , ,) , h , _t:L-. Av\-,-, itoxi, ...-- 0 tl r/17:. • % 4 i-s"\ 1 1#1111L'e ' ; atifija '; 1 ' ° _ 032.P - --- H- --.. k - aos "%1%‘1\ip.A. ‘____.,._.zar .11,_........ ..,w,Tr. , Ad. P:711 '71., ---. ET,- 611,10,1a% . ' i.-.. 0 -. C°Ittle, vilw alo r ' `1,e - i ' %I .ri• 14. • 2 .lk ..- . Clk 1. / I O .. , :. , fi. 4WAS kb. yilr_,,,r4),,4)A trlfan-.. 011,--%%„ - 1 __ ,K - ,o. . - v r , i . �� .....�.- -1 7 i it . zm .. ( weal 4.. ,-- -;;. .*-\11\i,/) 7 ilb,1 m N I I Pg.. Nil ar ; i 1 ---L - i :-; , 4 fr toN.--: tk - :i...x' . igrimr - . ) . :. . ..- ‘, ,_v.Ail „ too . \ .. ) fir « 1-- / 4t� ' / _ _ QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION � NC fL��E� MAY 2 6 1998 DATE: May 22, 1998 F�nss,� ITEM NO: Gk OW OFDepartment Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse // City Administrator's Title City Administrator C� Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Harming Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North When the County Road 6 project was being planned, the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to maintain the ability to create a second lot. Staff has recently clarified the current status and post-right-of-way acquisition status of the property, and the Hannings'plans for subdividing the property. Maps showing these are attached. According to staffs calculations, the property includes 10+ acres of dry buildable land, both before and after the right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of rite Hannings to retain an open meadow area, their plan for the future lot to the east includes a sc •:iewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way acquisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres,creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to be run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site, and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures. This would create concerns regarding privacy,and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. To avoid this situation, the Hannings are requesting that the City support the Hannings' initial subdivision plan even though the second lot would not meet the minimum lot standard of 5 acres. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requirement, but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance at some point in the future. This is contrary to the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate the Council's position regarding the Hannings' request, and to direct staff accordingly. , . O °f� o ' x \.,, bx .,..; LN , ..,. ...4........ ,....,.. ANilZ CI 1111111111111.11.. 1 ;‘-'S ar )*4\\ \ 4 4 ON ,1� 4o x Ilk 4110 \‘ ' '' ', \ 4 I' 0, ith 0 54i fir tWOW,V 1/44 6It ..______f'e - ______-- ,. ....... . . . . li No. % . • . , 1k ' c , 66 ilevg\. �r i, tilt...S.- TA ' ' * %. N00.q. • 1 v.!. .,. .... . ,.$0> N . \ t 14, ,,, Arit 411 41111 • • 'opme, 1 , I, Tuft._ -,.. \k\ 01� w, °'"� � 1lb ^' x s m 11 0.,,,it p ,n,i 1 •,-...... .. , lit ! ''.01 ,f)7e°121,17Piral.. a a.181.1a...... al."1914114 e .11. Mal ,e' linifi• °:, ' illit ISO \ I 1 II r •Iro ..,0 ..,, . ,. -, ,, ...ristri \....,. 1, ,,s \ 1,,, .-/--.1;-(37: . .. , , , r .,, ,,, ;v . 2, ---; • ‘ t \‘ 1: ‘ 141" ,i0 ..°4 .,,,,,i 10L"`°1e,:°4, , . . U!--,,,• :-; / , co -3 /1 r 1;. f.. , . ....,_ K YU* , //t\ . %b 7 . (---. y 011ellftiftftilik.4, VA* ,getdi °--6-...6 TalliN, ,..: wf. id: . . Oe. „ 4 ot , , .,,v ve / c--:-, -0.). --\ 1 i \ v lip, .........______ I. . \ ,s: . il _____ __,. . ..7% . _ ,,,,. .:‘,. , __,.,,.._:______„___ ________ Aiip-i- ...-;\,,\ vc:' ,?.? • 4\ ir .;_‘ • di ••• H. J` . > \ s0' ___-____0. 0 - • fl f , err' I \\\( \ \ ' ,4h 7`' . \ \ .� \\\\\\ \ :5\\ t ,\\ \\:\\..c,t,..,,+,...it1,1;:i.. . .;.., \ \ ' iItj+'•' ..\ \ 1'tr-------.\) � 4,c,. _,......, .....„.., .:,..),..., ,...,...____............... \ A \\ s ,1,.. ,. \\ \ • \i 1 \______ ...\\ ca. . \9ir \ ,,,..: .'^'tti \ ` 8 a IL / .PG; k‘ . \ VIN \ \ \ 1 . \ .\ \ \ ....., \,. \ N . \\ \ \, . \ \\ -,.......... / n\ N............/ •\ \\\\\ \ . . \ \ \ \ \ ). \ /.....1„.., , ,,, ?, , . 7 N).. •.N.-)\ \_____\-.--___..,. -- --/ , \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\‘\\\\\ \1\ \ \\\\, � � � � � �\ ) \\ \1, �. \ \ .... , .. „.._____,.,....) _,.. 7 \ \ \\ ,:$ , ..- c!, 4, / , ....._,..... ,..-- / \\\,\I \ 1 i tb,<I7 7 ,....... ......... .....- , . 0 z ..,..„..... / \ \ J \\\\ / / / / cy/ / __--_--- / 1 / 7 / qua / .� � / 1 1 , le / �� • ,�,:,i !'; meq ,., i / / l / Yt, �' 1b."--„,,,g0:. ! a _ ) �: i ,� / T s / // // / 7 !6 45, 57'x: 1 l. ? O \ ) / / //// `a• / 'I • I I I 1.- I- N N Q N LO r- 1 1 I I a m CO U-1 /r Wr 1111A . !l if II i � W II 1 wCO I a m p m N II 1 I I M 2 0 0 11 I \ II I — a • cc a 12.LL 3 CD I- CC 01 1 1 b 0 N W W K 11 � m z CL 0->- 0- a I I r c F- r r 1 I W N II --- CO I N 2 r / II \Wm Ca / I w K tZ •r re ' zi a � / W O u 3c Z oOa a / u I 11 ' 1 u W O % F- I 1 ' I n. L.L. 0. r p /, I l am ID _ L II 4 p X x e I �,-, ' W 2 CC n x x , II// ' • N J .- X X O 1/ i I Q X X w CC // 1/ I I / Ii ZW o J O O Ll oL W a /l • /' W O Z W a • K W O Y w H ® \� , ,, C.7 d w 1 S H O + I I Q . ._. • \ Q I I — M 5` 1 �.� I 1 + Z \ N o u sr I` LI I a 0 1 I ¢ MK `� I IL m to 1 - I • W N II �}{I / 3.Z V 7 < 1 Z J Y O 11 N m m z / O ,D {�1 \ 1 - Woro / 3 \ I / O K ^ ,- 0 .. LL , II / /1 aZ W 0 2 0O U /1 WN auO 6. d I- p 6 II / . IQN I / /Z Q M m /JI ` _ — _r M _ N 1...... /_�— - T = m II - I /CD ' 11 ' / ozW . KIS - I 6 cc / ZW Mw IT Q= I T I / J 3 OQ ¢ a r re-) 1 1 / W O 2 0 W 1 r 1 aw - - W L. \� I I I077 / a W a x r o I 1 �.. l 1I / -�~`� •� I 1 C,73 / --I ► 1 / �_ 1 1 0 1 1 W Dcc\jj(::::) z v / I 1 /I ., 71W a ......____:...........,...: ..."........-...._ z ° I ,.,44.04.0City of Orono �kESH�4 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: ( ' To: e1CR- 6,PbrArr Fax: E O' 171() Re: f- pJ/1° Sender: to W- (� :1_r'a/J YOU SHOULD RECEIVE /67 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 473-7357. PERMIT CITY OF ORONO PERMIT TYPE: - 2750 Kelley Parkway- P.O. Box 66 t_'°='Ei;`_Dt•F I-N i' Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Permit Number: ;)1�_;___: (612) 473-7357 Date Issued: . 08/19/98 SITE ADDRESS: _. }H AVE N t_H, DESCRIPTION: I AND ALTERATION Userf`e r rrl i t• I y pe LAND ALTERATION 1 REMARKS: SUBJECT Tii t:ONDITTtits`=; OF APPROVAL OF R'EShiLU_!TT=it! #4086 . LANDOWNERS !I D NOT SIGN RESOLUTION . FEE SUMMARY: F Lee 5.7' 60 Total Fee $75 . 00 CONTRACTOR: - Applicant - OWNER: _ _ E;u'_�:_�E CONSTRUCTION 1 ,7 /_: -t ;°,N iyl_ . ._PA--- ` i 13001 BELLE PLAIN TRAIL u.:;=;_:i) GTH AVE i'K - BELLE F'L- I(.�E MN 56011 i i3 O t 6i'. L_=EA (612) 873-6373 THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY .-QUESTS:_ PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS _:F'EC I F Hr.O AGREES: Tr '10 ALL WORK: I N STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF L 0-":: u ORD 4 TgCP - ,,TF OF M 1 NNFSO T A F:t_!I LD I NG CODE REQUIREMENTS.c7,02Ce _J aa246^..) APPLICANT'P ITEE SIGN TURE ISSUED BY:SIGNATURE A !�• Total Fee: $ Date Received: #: U Entered By: Permit �/ 93 3 CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION All information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS (circle one) OWNER OR CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS: yo,6 , de . At' ZIP: NAME OF OWNER: �,�g e �i- J Il Y7q to PHONE: (home) ` �� ��11- (work) MAILING ADDRESS: ya2-O S K7�t iT . CITY: ()voh-0 ZIP: CONTRACTOR: ,tsSp CQPHONE: -)2 '(937 3 CONTACT PERSON: y4nz c— MOBILE/PAGER: –C)7 t'( MAILING ADDRESS: )30(1, ( (fit l e F(q L-_,!cs,1 CITY: go, (/, -� ZIP: .5200/( STATE LICENSE: # ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: NAME: REGISTRATION# TYPE OF WORK: New Addition Accessory Structure Move Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration PROPOSED WORK(describe in detail): at,/,1 () STORIES: SQ. kEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS: GARAGE STALLS: ATT. DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit?and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accord. . e with .- .pi•►oved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: Li DATE: 6 3 7,c/ NOTE! Parade of Homes events require sepa ate ,.•rmit approval by Police Department and City Council 60 days prior to the event. Non pe itted events will not be allowed. \ / • .• \N NN, -----7----1\ _� / / 1 v \/ i l/'N., \ IN \ • O i - -- � � -� N. N. �f �A --- kV;`‘ Imo— — — � �� �\. \<Lsr9 y / _ � .� .1/4 (.11 / / / // //! _ N. �\N \ \ \ \ \ ` /p Orb / / / / / / / / / .4'::----° . ''/ ,L\o / / �\ O' • f /' // /// % / // // �- .C3_ ' /\ / / / / / / / // / / / 2� \ c 1 j // r,"711:\o„ \ \ \ 111c / / / / / / i L� /1 \ / / i M --. --: ,. .e..- \. \ \L\ le 10 1 I I \ o z i P � 1 - -- -- -- - z ` 1 i \ - - _ —�— -< -- z 1 �. - _ `�' _ _- - - - - MGA . • - z' o c \.,t7:3 m cx; — \ Q C. ;— LP n -s ` - \ = G � � o l • OO 1 --r r 0. G \ o \ o tn 0 „ City ofOrono V-txEssov• 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: -/ -7G To: /) I 6). ri 4A-Il..) Fax: 3 Lo Re: H.4-NN/ Sender: MI 144,5: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 473-7357. 1 I / i A > N a ,. §., i JUl m 1 • r f I w N1•08'40*W 130.80 , � ,-_sem--ic 0 1 r 1 0 1 1 . _ I / _` -'-'4- \ I / / �� / / �� + / lIll ll / —� .„ '"p / � // / / � 7 Aft i i / i / � I / N ' 0l 1 � l � � I I I i N � \ \ *< t \t1 ' \ \ I/ \ \ * ., 2 ---:--'.-:-----------------::--<--. N �\ �'_ � � � �\ \ ���-- --// \ ti y _—__� \\ \ �_ _ IV V\ ' / y z .."--____, ..-'...-- ,, \\ \ \,,,,=----_____::::::-_______------.______________--r; .''A;!..i...\\ ,\ \ // ' .t.: \\it.) \ / / / , a, .,,,,y i v N., O •://' -\\ w\• \ N \� \` ////// � // / dem"/ \��� \ \\ r i \� m )).4,..z:,,\\s7 0,,\ /z 7 Z z///// (I sI i / // .--- m of :•-•:'.:4,V \ i .mss,.r 5;;� -,6.�� l I i b I ' / / -- v ami O`.C w � a .r � m r mi '. r E v. ' iii N1.0840•W 130.80 ,. -.... . r .....,..._ 1 1 1 ,------- 1-_- 1 III / / / l 1 � p`� / i l /1 j t " � ,// / / i � , ., , 7 , , 1 I� / / � J / \ / ° v - e. m iiii) / i 1 I I i 1 • I I I I \ \ \ \`_��� r - ��—�/ /tel l \ \\ \� \ ___-- _------ <--:-.-_-----,„, \\ \ \ * '' 2 ::iii: r;...ei:\' \ / z....._._____.-----::::N."--: \s\\ \„i.‘„......:-----_____::::-..__________ , / / /7,„----'------ '"-,- * \ -------:-----==17=--------11:--"::-—-___.----_—___--- M ; fr:///1 :7 ______: .._.P•.,. '+ ° �.1-:11:11:::)-\:\\\/, moi` � Till: � �°::\t'5\' 7 z ::-,.,,,-,. \.\ , \ / / / / / / . 4, 7 \''''' ' -"\Nig -----'s---. \\ l \ NF; \\�/ /� i 1 ,- „ �r":::k`T_.`- mi /�/I� 7. ::1‘ ;',\` \ N ,'' '/ ,dam Ni \ N \ ., ' � �% ��%�°gib/ / 1 / / / c-----. --------\--- / / Zi III l V M.- ►/ ILENTYWOOD / // / - 10------ 1-1/6':I-- / 7 ------------------__.-, \ \\ —/ 1 :n.. utility,e. ents., . N 1Jr- *----...... A. i........- % � 17„,.., // , ,.......,.` 19'2 y/ 3 / / / // / _____ , ._, .97 / / \ \ _`` ,A.s;-- 9)ts, \ ' / // / ----.." 101-> 90 \ \ / / / 1 j (/ / \ \ I Z v 8Q \ / \ J / \ / \ \ 1 / / 7I 4)C, \ ,yil 0 , , I / co i / ,x, ' i V I N \ ti 4 ,I \ \ \ \ \5 .......,---) \ \ . 1 \ \ \ \ i / \\ il \ / /------- - \ . \ ?\ / / ......____,b i L .4i,i. \ \,,, \ \ / / F "r. � ( \ I \ \ N ill ,v \\\\\\ \ '- --7 /LIANA- Co lot N rt !/t3 K. 23, &:)V T�fis /.S A 141,444. --601b-r-i{ s' lPA.1� s , si17cs- D� P,eof E-- c zo ' 22' w1A6s-- A/ !.0 ) D t'e..6o Polei' /s 0-25 ' fi eAsr- of Ser.-77d ) 1,W = ±4//2 '>e ` /6673 s C. ©, Z(Z- -� ir': `' ... ktA, • kO' - .;•:10 'LVC . Atsil, 1p ; cp '\ \\1 • \\\ . k . • #11404; 4-rot 710g1.i.‘4 ,4Le i 4 7. • t?. , .N. ,, 87 leAsle,1•4 0,720".'4i ' %•s! , " . L1 v. lavdtfl .g p- v- _ • -.- IIIxk, IF Aragit A/P-.5 ihr., :, -. ' .o �� m e *.o‘. \.4- 440 . dd m floA� ��-, _�.,.;. kN . r..7 NE ___., ` , / 6..., 4•00i,,714,1; . ,.1, cli" /V, _,41,1[ I S 1 i.A. 'sorf <, VI . ,:z.Wiff/ ,/,' , I , ) I 7 ( Vox* 1yt,„ ( ,:,,, , ,c , 1K I ii$L I..N41c.i• ,T1 '.,., _______ ! .;.,4 4 11\ ti . ,_,w,,T\.., 0- ,..,., ',,:ir--/-7,4. ... ‘ \-i. tooPm „ ,,,,,,.. , .%:7 tie. lie \liktgairiafttioniollw i . A,\ ,, , lr s. —......,0!‘ . ,i? . N„ :\. - 4. .,,d, _ .-0-47--- -"Ait ) 1/00- s . .. \ofr, % <-4) 1 kii:'MI; a' , - 1 ° \ ,-,_„,f V%,•., 47~44 Z %/041144**:‘ th, i L.1100-111 ii:., A -1 ' • , ktilkilliti Nt %-i--" k' ItIVIPI 1 10 • A : % ..411111ftiirimmilikt. 0,46',!thL7-11*vc. -w''. -01/ ' : I i PI i 41,71 Ail .: \,.-,k--4-1L14iik.'„7-400..-irimmer„.„,,,„„ - -e: ' 1 mil;•-;17„ Lc RV' ‘ `1\i, Iii-;6 . .0'w. w _.'.9 1”( X (210\ li. IjredPi/CSMIN -774llfik., 11 . 6 :!: .:(06 , a; 1 jitoragri*i o • i it . ... • IN 4 ,,,-16 -41t, , 1 , _ . - vi - ,.,, 1* Ni44 Nilt [ 41 e%\ 1." • _ t., Iii, it '*". „, 1 jr_— - , ikt R \„..._ -( . Cm, tli,,), - 14\ :k %will 0, . . • .40.77 , \ iv i IF., .- .:. v Nv- il . . r , vilt . . % Nt x I �A��I "1 o ,li 1t . itoi\... .....wevoicit,, . __ __. - - [ . P !OA\ - r I ` ,, . � _x czs C A1 , 1 ........../' / / ) II 1 \ \ �i� I . / / / \ \ \--� 7 // / / / � �,_____,_____ . ___J . , / ______,,_, }., ____ --� / / /1 —__-_ . _ .. .,, .......____/____------' 1 /, ,..... ,....._ , ___, ......__________ // ,-- ,,,-,-_-.„ --„. \ _____--- y/ z. — E..... __________ ____________________________ .......„. „......______,,,. ...„. s. ' /, -_-________--____--____________ ___/ ///2 ---------„x,\ \ \ — ..___ __ ,,„,,„, , ____., \ \ \ \ , N Id/ \ \ \ /ice_ ,/ % \ \ \ \���_\ \ N \\ \\ a Ai qf-14-%( \ ' Z 1 \ \ \ V ` ; . �_c.: 1 / . A , I N \ \ I \ \ \\ `aa d ��\� ...9k. , '` , /� % it /// ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \dna �\` + i •\`I / "'1 11 � ''�� \ //� / A°I _ l / /I 1. {i'A 0 1 , /Li ,...., �___ e Lb ) I / ii I / / / - . // ( € , r,ya I l _-/_ / _ \ �l ill 4 � a.,'i i•e -t �� � - 'dam // I s . � ( j 3. _ • ) % ;I / j/ / • • �/- / • / ) /// 8i/./i". : .. .y/ (�// ilill /1/'::/d/ i t:��... p a ' V and ;,'k;'r N . . , ' 1 /11(11 'fi /V 7 �7 s L _, �/ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Jabbour responded that Council was almost split. He wanted to have Council member Goetten present as she lives in the area. Flint indicated that if the issue comes up again, there will be a notice sent to the neighborhood. He suggested leaving the issue up to Woodhill to bring back to Council if they find the need to do so. Malkerson agreed that it would be best to provide notice to the neighborhood if Woodhill decides they need to have further consideration on the access issue. (#22) COUNTY ROAD 6 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING SUBDIVISION PLAN AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse reported that the subject property is 10+ acres in the 5 acre zoning district. When the County Road 6 project begins, the County will acquire a portion of the property for right-of-way. The property will still be 10+ acres but the way the home is situated on the lot creates a problem in configuration for a subdivision. The issue came up early in the discussions of the County Road 6 project, and Council indicated they would consider some sort of approval of a second buildable lot on the property, if the right-of-way would reduce the property to less than 10 acres. The issue has become that the lot they want to create, because of the location of the existing house, is less than 5 acres even though the right-of-way does not reduce the property to less than 10 acres. Normally Council hasn't approved lots less than 5 acres in a new subdivision. A survey showing a potential subdivision indicates that one lot would be 4.17 acres. The Hannings wish to keep a meadow with their existing home. Even without the right-of-way taking, the lot would be substandard. To create two 5 acre lots, gerrymandering the line is necessary, the meadow is lost, and the lot goes behind the existing buildings. Since Council had indicated a willingness to consider options, the Hannings are looking for direction as they are currently dealing with the County. Jabbour stated that Council took the position that the City would not cause the Hannings to have an unbuildable lot because of the right-of-way acquisition. He did not understand that the location of the building would be a problem. He asked about obtaining additional property from an adjacent parcel. Moorse responded that there is an NSP easement along the back of the property. Kelley asked how the property would have been subdivided without the County right-of-way. Hanning responded that he had the property surveyed 6-8 years ago by Coffin and Gronberg, but is unable to find the survey that was done. Moorse confirmed that the property is 14 acres but only 10+ dry buildable acres. 24 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Hanning noted that this is the second time the County has taken a portion of this property. Jabbour felt the Council should take the position that anything the County has taken should not render the property as an unbuildable lot. Kelley agreed, giving the example that if the County takes 1/4 acre, only 4 3/4 acre should be required for a buildable lot. Harming asked about driveway access. Kelley thought the County would appreciate one curb cut for both properties. Kelley suggested a small outlot on the larger parcel to serve both parcels. Flint asked why an outlot should be created rather than granting an easement. Kelley responded that it would be up to Hanning to decide which option would be better. Jabbour noted three problems as follows: 1. If the County is taking part of the property, is there still a buildable lot? The consensus has been that whatever is taken out will be reduced from the required lot size. 2. How can the City make the assurance that there are two buildable lots to the Hannings? 3. How would the final subdivision be configured? Barrett asked if the concession of reducing the 5 acre minimum by the amount that the County takes is a form of compensation. Jabbour thought it would be. Flint asked why the Hannings did not want to proceed with the subdivision at this time. Hanning responded that if he did the subdivision now, it reduces his future options. He may choose not to ever do the subdivision, his property taxes are affected, and the value of his home may be lowered. Kelley felt the Hannings were taking a risk since the current Council could not bind future Councils. Barrett stated that to get some type of binding contract, an agreement would have to be made with the County. Jabbour added that the right-of-way was only 22,000 s.f. If that were divided between two lots, a reduction of 11,000 s.f. is very minimal. Hanning responded that it may not seem like much but could make a difference. Moorse added that the right-of-way is proposed at 1/4 acre, just over the top of the berm. 25 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Jabbour suggested Hanning work with staff and come back to the next Council meeting on June 8 with a better plan. Gaffron should find out from the County exactly what will be taken for right-of-way. Hanning asked if a park fee would have to be paid if he subdivided now. Jabbour responded that the maximum would be $4,900 for the additional unit. Gaffron explained that if the value of the second parcel is $61,000 or more, the maximum amount is $4,900 for the park fee. (#23) REQUESTS BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE Moorse explained that Mr. Crear, owner of the property at 1980 Spates Avenue, would like to purchase the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive. Council waived the sewer assessment by resolution when the parcel was released for sale to adjacent property owners, based on the fact that the lot would not be buildable. An additional special assessment of approximately $5,000 was discovered that is related to legal fees incurred in the review of a planning application from a prior owner. The City was successful in fighting the application but was unable to collect the cost from the prior owner. Mr. Crear is asking to have this assessment forgiven. Crear added that he could not combine the tax forfeit parcel with his homestead property because the mortgage company wouldn't allow it. Moorse suggested a covenant be drawn up to address the issue. Kelley asked what Crear planned to do with the tax forfeit parcel. Crear responded that he planned to plant trees. He added that the University of Minnesota was interested in using the property as a test site for bio-remediation and how chemicals react with the soil. Kelley asked how Crear intended to block the road noise as the building currently provides a buffer. Crear responded that the existing fence would not be removed until something was built to take its place. Kelley asked for a sketch plan from Crear and stakes showing the property lines. Crear noted that Hennepin County was going to take a portion of the property. 26 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 19, 1998 ITEM NO: /.6---v Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron MoorseCity Administrator's #'6 Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North Background When the County Road 6 project was being planned, the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to maintain the ability to create a second lot. In clarifying the current status of the property, staff has determined the property includes 10+ acres of dry buildable land, both before and after the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of the Hannings to retain an open meadow area,their plan for the future lot to the east includes a somewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way acquisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that,even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres,-creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures on the homestead site. This could create concerns regarding privacy, and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to the boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. Hannings' Request To minimize the negative impacts of a gerrymandered second lot on the homestead parcel, the Hannings are requesting that the amount of land required for the second lot be reduced by the amount of the County Road 6 right-of-way acquisition. Impact on Right-of-Way Acquisition Process The County's acquisition of the right-of-way from the Hannings is being accomplished through a condemnation process, with efforts being made to reach a negotiated agreement on the amount of compensation for the right-of-way acquired. The County has offered the Hannings an amount based Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June 19, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North on the number of square feet of land acquired. It is staffs understanding that this is acceptable to the Hannings if they can be assured they are able to subdivide the property to create an acceptable second lot at some time in the future. The Hannings believe that this cannot occur unless the City allows the area of the second lot to be reduced by the amount of the County's right-of-way acquisition. If the City will not allow the reduced lot area,the Hannings will take the position that their compensation for the right-of-way taking needs to be more than the payment for the 23,000 square feet of land acquired. Rather, it should reflect the taking of a buildable lot, or substantial damages to the homestead lot. Impact of the Right-of-Way Acquisition on the Value of the Hannings' Property Because the right-of-way acquisition is not reducing the total dry buildable area to less than 10 acres, it would be difficult to make the case that the right-of-way acquisition is taking a buildable lot. The Hannings may be able to make the case that the right-of-way taking would cause a subdivision to have a greater negative impact on the existing house. It is not clear what type of value would be g P subdivisionprior to the right-of-way acquisition would also placed on this negative impact, since a g P have had a negative impact on the existing house. Council Direction At its May 26 meeting, the Council directed staff to determine the exact amount of right-of-way being acquired and to work on a possible subdivision scheme. There also appeared to be some support on the Council to reduce the lot area requirement for the second lot by the amount of the right-of-way acquisition. Impact of Right-of-Way Acquisition on Potential Subdivision Staff has developed a number of options for subdividing the property, both pre-right-of-way acquisition and post-right-of-way acquisition. These are attached. Settlement Agreement There are instances where the City has entered into a settlement agreement with property owners when the City has acquired right-of-way that has reduced the amount of remaining property to less than the amount required for a buildable lot. The Hannings' situation is different from two perspectives. 1. The City is not reducing the amount of property to less than the amount required for two lots. 2. The City is not the party acquiring the property and is not the party involved in the condemnation process. The City has an interest in this process because the property is in Orono, and because the City will pay 50% of the right-of-way acquisition costs. Request for Council Action continued Page 3 June 19, 1998 Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance without the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. The City Attorney has also indicated that because the City is not a direct party to the right-of-way acquisition process or the condemnation process, it may not be possible for the City to grant the lot area variance through a settlement agreement. The Attorney is researching this issue and will provide an opinion at the Council meeting. Process The normal process for considering a request to create a lot with less than the required lot area would be a variance process through the Planning Commission. For a number of reasons,the Hannings do not want to subdivide the property at this time. The Hannings are requesting the City provide, through some means, assurance that if the property is subdivided at some point in the future the new lot could be 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres. They need to have this assurance at this time because it affects the position they take regarding the level of compensation they should receive for the right- of-way acquisition. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requirement,but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Options 1. The City may be able to enter into a settlement agreement with the Hannings providing that the second lot could be created with an area 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres, subject to agreement on the level of compensation to be received for the right-of-way acquisition. 2. The Council could indicate general support for a lot area variance. 3. The Council could take no action and allow the level of compensation to the Hannings for the right-of-way acquisition to be set through the condemnation process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion in response to the Hannings'request for an agreement to allow a second lot to be created with an area of 23,000 s.f. less than 5 acres. HANNING.2 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 Mayor/Council Report-continued Kelley remarked that increases for the Long Lake Fire Department pension plan were approved without City Council approval,noting that 80% of the budget is derived from Orono, and suggested that the Fire Department notify the City Council before future financial decisions are finalized. Mayor Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City Council should meet with the Long Lake City Council to discuss financial issues related to both the Police and Fire Departments. Kelley suggested that a prioritized list be comprised by the City Administrator every two weeks with the current projects being listed along with a time schedule to help the City Council keep current on the projects and to ensure that future needs are being addressed adequately. Goetten indicated she would like to be updated at least once a month on the various street improvement projects that are currently underway. Gappa indicated he could have the Public Works Department review traffic counts on County Road 15 to determine if traffic lights are warranted. Kellogg noted that County Road 15 should remain at the same elevation as previously, with the County Road 6 project on schedule. Concerning Ferndale, Plymouth has drafted an agreement which will be discussed at the meeting on June 29th. ENGINEER REPORT Mayor Jabbour inquired about the status of the Edgewood Hills sewer project. Kellogg stated the project, particularly the directional borings, is being rebid. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#15) ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING -REQUEST FOR AN AGREEMENT RELATED TO A FUTURE SUBDIVISION AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse stated the Hannings had expressed concern that the County Road 6 project would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future because of the right-of-way acquisition. The Council had previously indicated that it would consider entering into an agreement with the Hannings to maintain the ability to create a second lot if the lot area was reduced below the required amount. 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#15) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued City Staff has reviewed the property both before and after the acquisition of the County Road 6 right-of-way, and has determined that the property includes ten plus acres of dry buildable land. The Hannings have indicated a concern regarding the configuration of the possible new lot because of the location of the existing residence. Moorse expressed concern that if a lot area variance by agreement is granted, no public input will be allowed, and since the City is not a direct party to this condemnation procedure, Moorse questioned whether the City is legally able to enter into such an agreement. Tom Radio stated the agreement would attempt to bind future City Councils and current law g P prohibits that because it does not allow for due process. Radio commented the City Council is limited in its ability to give the Hannings much relief Mrs. Hanning stated no variance is being requested at this time. Mayor Jabbour noted the Hannings were offered $12,000 for the right-of-way. Due to the amount of land remaining after the right-of-way acquisition, which does allow for two lots but with an undesirable configuration, it was the feeling of Mayor Jabbour that the Hannings have lost more than just the land in the right-of-way. Radio commented the Hannings should take the worst case scenario and present it to the County, which would be that the City Council would not grant a variance. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like the City to grant a contractual variance to them or go on record saying that a variance will be denied. Mayor Jabbour commented the City Council was under the impression the last time this matter was discussed that one lot would become unbuildable after the right-of-way acquisition, which is not the case now. Flint suggested the City Council could grant conceptual approval which would not be binding on future action by the City Council. Radio cautioned against such action. Kelley suggested the City take no action. 17 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 22, 1998 (#15) Robert and Julie Hanning-Request for an Agreement Related to a Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue North -continued Gaffron suggested the Hannings file an application and get an answer before the hearing on September 23rd. Mrs. Hanning stated she would like some action by the City Council on this matter. Radio noted a motion was not necessary or appropriate at this time. Mayor Jabbour directed City Staff to draft a letter to the Hannings stating the facts, noting that the property line for the second lot is undesirable according to Orono ordinances and causes other concerns for the first lot. (#16) REVISED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RELEASE OF THE TAX FORFEITED PARCEL AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE -RESOLUTION NO. 4105 Moorse stated the resolution has been amended regarding the release of the tax forfeited parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive to reflect the City Council's wishes that the outstanding special assessments on the property be waived and that the tax forfeited parcel be allowed to remain a separate parcel, subject to a covenant being placed on the parcel prohibiting the parcel from being a buildable lot. Mayor Jabbour expressed concern that the building should be condemned and torn down due to public safety issues. Kelley indicated he also was in favor of that. Gaffron noted the petroleum tanks were removed 10 or 15 years ago. Kelley inquired what impact this has had on the sewer in the area. Mayor Jabbour stated the sewer was disconnected and capped on behalf of the owner. Tom Radio recommended the City Council add the condition that the property owner waive any right to object to a hazardous building procedure with the costs being assessed against the property owner. Flint commented that it should be made clear that the City is not condemning the land but the building. Goetten stated she would be in favor of condemning the building but not the land. 18