VN-149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 3 - .ter K: - - Public Hearing VN- ll'--. Octo'oer 1~, 1975 80-0 P.M. Request< Variance to allow division of property into two lots, each having .66.15 foot width. A`p`plicant . Henry 0 ~. Bochenski Lbcation~ 185- Long Lake .Road (west of Long Lake Road and south of 19th Street N.TrJ. ) Discussions The applicant has a very deep,~~narrow lot located between'Long `Lake Road and 20th Avenue N.W., which he wishes to split into two lots; one. of which would. front on Long Lake Road. and one of whi ch would T"ront on 20th Avenue-N.W. The division. of the .lot itself is proposed to be accomplished. by minor subdivision rather by a plat. In-view of the shape of the parcel, the granting of-this variance would .not seem to be unreasonable and:, _in fact, a variance` ti~ras granted in 1971 where virtually ident- - cal situation on the property to the south. f We see no problem with the variance request but do have some.. concerns regarding the property division itself.. • The first concern is that Ramsey County has been requiring as con-. dition of approval of plats the deciation of sufficient right-of-way to provide a forty-three foot (~-3' } right-of-way on each side of the center line of county roads. In the applicant's case, there is presently only thirty-three feet (33') of right-of-way on his Bide of the center line abutting his property on Long Lake Road. We would suggest somewhat as a favor to the County that the division be con- ditioned on dedication of the additional ten feet (l0') of right-of- way. In justif ication of this, it can be pointed out that the property division is something of a favor granted to the applicant in lieu of requiring a formal platting. Were platting required, the County would require-the dedication of the additional ten. feet (10') of right-of-way before they would approve the plat. ~n the -case of the lot to the south it was noted earlier at the time that property division eras approved apparently no dedication of the additional right-of-way was required, with the result ,that only that property and the property in question have not dedicated the additional ten feet (10') of right-of-way along this section of Long Lake Road. nylo vf' i.,21~ ~Jt'UU1Gmp ~~ a.l ~ c~w~_ng subdivision without platting is that many of these factors tend to be overlooked. In this-case we"would suggest that the applicant. dedicate the necessary ten,feet (10~) of right-of-way. The present house is nonconforming in its front yard setback, having only a twenty-s~ven•foot (27') setback. and the additional dedication will reduce that setback to seventeen feet (17').