03-16-1998 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

t i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 • C#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Olsen asked that the lots not be referred to as a legal combination, since there are no documents to substantiate that it occurred. Mabusth informed her that it was a phrase used for combination of lots for tax purposes. Mabusth asked when the error was made. Gaffron referenced a County letter indicated it occurred prior to the 1960's. Mabusth said she would find it hard to imagine that this occurred at the City at that time and probably occurred at the County. Berg asked if the property has always been Torrens property. Olsen said yes. Olsen added that the Hennepin County letter said it occurred prior to 1960's but the revised plat of 1963 did not show the combination, and the next revision to the plat map occurred in 1976. Olsen indicated that a set of maps from the 1960's showing the lots separately, and the combination likely occurred in the 1960's. Gaffron informed her that regardless of this information, it is the City's position that a subdivision is required to separate lots and asked the Planning Commission if they would allow this to occur. He asked that the Commission consider what impacts the subdivision would have with building on the property. Mr. Touve referenced the plat map where lots 55 and 56 are combined and where the • three lots are shown combined. The deed shows lot 55 being a separate lot since 1953. Touve said his property show 4 lots taxed individually but two were combined at one time and then a third added. Gaffron referenced map H-6 showing two lots combined, lots 56 and 57. He concluded that this map was prepared by the County in 1987 without City approval, and the property owner was informed that a subdivision was required. The current County maps show all 3 lots combined. Touve felt Gaffron was being highly speculative. There were no public comments. Smith noted that Staff recommended denial. Stoddard asked if the property owner had any desire to purchase lot 57, understanding that there was no access and the property included DNR protected wetlands. Touve said he had no desire to change the lots. He said the substandard lot is similar to others in the neighborhood. He said this was not brought forward as an issue when he sold the lots to his daughter. Touve asked that the record show that he did not try to deceive the City when he applied for a variance in the 1970's. He had no idea that this was an issue. All seven lots were indicated as they were all under one ownership. There was no question regarding lot combination at that time. • 10