Laserfiche WebLink
.: <br />VN-155' ..?" <br />it may be argued that the taxes from such a small piece of property <br />would not be significant and, therefore, of very _little detriment <br />if the property should go tax forfeit, there is a policy question <br />in regard. to creating 18ts which have this potential. <br />The warrants given for_the variance request are. the hardship <br />which would be created by having to remove the existing landscaping, <br />concrete, slide, and the Eaaterng system. The applicants have <br />indicated that moving the fence onto their Fridley property would. <br />provide very little walking space on that side of the pool which <br />could create a very unsafe. situtaiion> The applicants have further <br />indicated that if he request is denied, they may be forced to remove <br />he pool entirely. <br />We .would just note that the pool itself appears to be'completely <br />within Fridley... The. area extending into New Brighton would appear <br />to include the fence,- sl-ide, .and landscaping on the east side of the <br />pool. <br />There was a concern raised at the Planning Commission meeting <br />regarding the possibility of structures being built near the <br />Lakatua's-pool. ~?e would just add that there is an American 0i1 <br />.Pipeline easement extending 65 feet eastward from~the Fridley-New <br />Brighton border. Normal easement provisions would not allow- <br />any permanent structures to be constructed in this area. <br />Planning Commission Consideration (April 20, 1976)° <br />The City Planner reviewed his comments and noted that the pool <br />itself appeared to be in Fridley while the fence and perhaps the <br />slide were encroachnig into New Brighton. <br />Mrs. Lakatua was present to answer questions, <br />Harty inquired as to the 65' American Oil easement along the <br />Fridley-New Brighton border. It was explained that normal easement <br />conditions would not allow any permanent structures to be built <br />on the easement. <br />Motion by Fredrickson, seconded by Harty, to recommend approavl <br />of NV-155a <br />Wickland stated that there was definitely a problem here, but that <br />he wasn't sure this is the function of~a variance. <br />