VN-155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y J - - .. Public Hearing VN=1.5 5 :. May 250.1976 8:25 P.M. ReQUest: VN-155 Variance to allow creation of one subminimal lot adjoining Lot l?_; :Block 1, Innsbruck"5th Addition Anoka County, and to become part of ~ai~ Lt 12 Block l.. Applicant: Keith T. HarstadfMrs. David Lakatua :Location: Lot 3, Block ?..o Innsbruck East and Lt 2, Block 2, Innsbruck East, Raansey County {Generally south of I-694" and northwest of Torchwood Dirve) Code Rectuirements: The elements of the variance are 1) undue hardship, 2.) unique circumstances and 3) applying to property. Code requirements indicate that all three elements must be present to justify the variance: Discussion- The-Lakatua's own a residential lot and home in Fridley at 'ehe end 'of Berne Circle and have constructed a swimming pool in their - rear yard. It was discovered after the platting of Innsbruck East that this swimming pool is constructed partially on property in New Brighton owned b~ Mr. Harstad. The applicants have mutaully worked out a solution which involves Lakatua's buying the property. they are occupying from Mr. Harstad. Essentially, the Lakatuas would acquire a triangular parcel of approximatley 650 square feet> -The land is .now part of Lots ? .and 3 of the Innsbruck East plat. -..The transfer of title of that small protion of property requires a property division and they are requesting a minor sub- division to allow that small area to be broken off of the existing -lots, Because"that lot domes not have frontage on a public street, because it does not have 10,000 square feet of lot area, and because it has inadequate width, a variance is required. The variance in regard to lot area and width is a variance from Section 10-010 (f) of the Zoning Code and a requirement for frontage on a public street is contained in Section~75:1'_"- subd. 6.a of the platting. regulations. The variance application mentions joining the property in question to the lot in Fridley. We checked this with the City Attorney and it appears that this is impossible because of the different sets of property records being maintained in different cotunties. If the property cannot be joined to the existing-lot in Fridley, there is a question of the lot going>tax forfeit. The likelihood of this happening may ,not be-_grea t 'since the lot cou d be purchased by another person who could order removal`of the pool encroachment~o While: