Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 15 of 34  <br />  <br /> <br />Gaffron stated due to the Special Lot Combination Agreement and the requirement that a person can only <br />extinguish it by subdividing it under the current platting standards, they would not be allowed to create a <br />substandard lot. Therefore the City would be approving a subdivision that would not be compliant with <br />City Codes if the agreement is extinguished, which is the basis for Staff’s recommendation of denial. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated a similar situation is if there were two contiguous lots where there was not a special lot <br />combination but merely a lot combination and they wanted to split it into two nonconforming lots, the <br />City would not approve it. These properties are not contiguous lots and, as a result, a Special Lot <br />Combination Agreement was entered into and they are not legally combined. <br /> <br />McGrann asked what property the 1161 was subdivided from. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it was not subdivided recently but was originally subdivided in 1885 or thereabouts. <br />Gaffron stated it was a stand-alone lot that was also owned in common with 1179. Those two lots are <br />100-foot lots and not 50-foot lots and were combined a number of years ago. 1161 was kept separate and <br />the lot to the east was also kept separate. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated Staff is currently working with the owner of 1161 to see if a plan can be created <br />without the need for variances. Gaffron noted 1161 meets the standards for a single lot in a group of <br />contiguous lots under MN Statutes because it was contiguous and owned in common but not combined <br />with 1179. Gaffron stated in that situation the City is bound to allow them to build on that substandard <br />lot. If the smaller piece is combined with it to help make additional acreage, it will not have a Special Lot <br />Combination Agreement. <br /> <br />Lemke asked whether 1169 North Arm Drive would be a conforming lot if it was subdivided. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the lakeshore lot is approximately one quarter of an acre where a minimum of one acre is <br />required. Any new lots that are created in that LR-1B zoning district are required to have a full acre and <br />140 feet of width. To suddenly split off that from the 1169 parcel would create not only one substandard <br />lot but two substandard lots. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if 1137 to the north is substandard. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it is a substandard lot as it currently sits and is owned by the people directly across <br />from it. Gaffron stated to his knowledge they have not entered into a Special Lot Combination <br />Agreement and they are considered separate tax parcels. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the two properties before the Planning Commission tonight are separate tax parcels. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated they are separate tax parcels. Gaffron indicated Hennepin County will allow a lot <br />combination for tax purposes if the land is directly across the road but that they normally will not do that <br />if the property is offset by 100 plus feet. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked whether 1137 could be built on. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it would be subject to whatever standards are in place at the time. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 15 of 34]