My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-13-1998 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1998
>
04-13-1998 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2012 4:13:03 PM
Creation date
9/26/2012 4:13:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 13, 1998 <br />( #9) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/James and June Touve, 4196 North Shore Drive - Continued <br />Access to the site would require a variance because of the wetland. Combining Lot 57 with Lots 58- <br />61 creates a parcel of 1.15 acres. This parcel may not need a lot area variance but other variances <br />may still be required. The combination also makes a driveway possible with less impact on the <br />wetland. <br />Gaffron stated that staff did not recommend approval of the subdivision. He added that Lots 55 -57 <br />would not meet the 80% requirement if Lot 57 was split off; and Lots 58 -61 may or may not be <br />buildable without the combination of Lot 57. Planning Commission concurred with staff on a vote <br />of 4 to 0. Gaffron noted the application is nearing the 60 day review deadline. <br />Oberhauser explained the history of the property. A house existed on Lots 55 and 56 in the 1940's. <br />Both Hennepin County and the City have researched their records and found no record of formal <br />action taken to combine Lots 55 and 56 with Lot 57. In 1960, all three lots were listed as one <br />property. However, there was no reason to combine these lots in the 1960's, and the applicant does <br />not believe a combination was done. Oberhauser added that in considering how the adjacent <br />property would be developed, there was no reason to deny.the subdivision. <br />I* <br />Olsen stated that she had researched 20 of the neighboring properties, 17 of which are equal to or ' <br />less than the size of Lots 55 and 56. She feels a clerical mistake was made at some time in the past <br />and she is trying to clear it up. Olsen also explained that she asked the Planning Commission to vote <br />on her application and move it forward for Council consideration. She added that the size of the lot <br />would not reduce the value in the neighborhood. <br />Kelley asked if the Olsen's thought they had bought only Lots 55 and 56 in 1986. Olsen confirmed <br />that they had only bought two lots. Kelley asked what they did in 1987 when the tax statement <br />showed they were paying taxes on three lots. Olsen explained that the extra lot was her parents, and <br />it really didn't matter who paid the taxes on that lot. They did not realize there was a legal issue <br />involved. <br />Kelley asked if a title search had been done. Olsen responded that the title company states this is <br />not a title issue. They have a deed for Lots 55 and 56, not Lot 57. Hennepin County has referred <br />her to the City. The City has informed her that the proper procedure to follow is the subdivision <br />process. <br />Kelley asked why her parents didn't want to combine all the lots. Olsen explained she has 5 sisters <br />to consider. They bought only Lots 55 and 56 from her parents. <br />0 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.