VN-155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• °a Request: VN-155, Variance to allow creation of one subminimal lot. adjoining Lot l2, Block 1, Innsbruck 5th Addition a Anoka County, and to become part. of said Lot 12, Block 1, Applicant: Keith T• Harstaci/ Mrs° David Lakatua Locati~~ Lot 3, Block 2, Innsbruck East and .Lot 2, Block 2, Innsbruck East, Ramsey County (generally south of I694 and northwest of Torchwood Drive) Discussion° The Lakatua's own a residential lot and home in Fridley at the end of Berne Circle and constructed a swimming pool in their rear yard. It was discovered after the platting of Inns- bruck East that this .swimming pool is constructed partially on property in New Brighton owned by Mr. Harstad. The applicants have mutually worked out a solution which involves Lakatua's buying the property they are occupying from Mr° Harstad. The transfer of title of that small portion of property requires a property division and they are requesting a minor subdivision to allow that small area to be broken off of the existing lots. Because that lot does 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 475:14 subd. 6.a of the platting regulations. The variance application mentiorss joining the property in question to the lot in Fridley. We have not had a chance to check this with the City Attorney but it appears that this may not be possible because of the different sets of property records being maintained in different counties. We will attempt to have a final answer by the time of the Planning Commission meeting. If the property cannot be joined to the existing lot in Fridley, the principal question that we would have is that of the lot going tax forfeit. There would seem to be very little impediment to this happening, while it may be argued that the taxes from such a small piece of property would not be significant and, therefore, of very little detriment if the property should~go tax forfeit, there is a policy question in regard to creating lots which have this potential. •