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