Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Van Scoy introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION #14 -08 -150 <br />A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0933 RELATING TO A <br />REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO CUL -DE -SAC LENGTH AND LOT WIDTH <br />RELATED TO THE PLAT OF PINE RIDGE. <br />WHEREAS, Gerald and Jane Davis, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant ", properly <br />applied to the City of Ramsey (the "City ") for variances to cul -de -sac length and minimum lot <br />width requirements for development of the property legally described as follows: <br />The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 32, Range 25, <br />Anoka County, Minnesota. <br />AND <br />That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township <br />32, Range 25, Anoka County Minnesota, lying Northeasterly of County State Aid <br />Highway 5. Subject to any easements, restrictions or reservations of record, if any. <br />(the "Subject Property ") <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RAMSEY PLANNING, as <br />follows: <br />1) That the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission for a public hearing <br />pursuant to Section 117 -53 (Variances) of the Ramsey City Code on August 7, 2014, and <br />that said public hearing was properly advertised, and that the minutes of said public <br />hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. <br />2) That the Subject Property is zoned R -1 Residential (Rural Developing) and the Applicant <br />has made proper application to the City to plat the Subject Property into six (6) single <br />family residential lots. <br />3) That Section 117 -614 Subd. (c)(3) of City Code limits the length of a cul -de -sac to 600 <br />feet. <br />4) That Section 117 -111 (d) of City Code requires a minimum lot width at the required front <br />yard setback of 200 feet. <br />5) That the original design included a cul -de -sac that was 600 feet in length but Lots 3 & 4 <br />had only 100 feet of lot width at the required front yard setback. <br />6) That at the direction of the Planning Commission, the Applicant extended the cul -de -sac <br />to try and eliminate the substandard lot widths. <br />