Agenda - Council - 02/26/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

30th January 1979 Progressive Home Construction, 6957 West Hiway 10 Anoka, Minnesota 55303 II]c. The following is an explanation of the circumstances that ]_ed to requesting a variance on the property located at the SE corner of Hiway 47 and State Aid Hiway Number 7. In the fall of 1977 Howard Triggs (an agent from Car-Son Homes, Inc.) and Reynold Sanderson (owner of the property) went before the Ramsey Planning and Zoning and requested they be allowed to split the subject property, plus the property running South to Trott Brook, into 2½ acre lots. At that time the planning and zoning commission told them that the minimum lot size was ten (10) acres. In questioning Howard he indicated that the planning and zoning didn't go into any details concerning the City's ordinance on ten (10) acre parcels. At this point in time Mr. Triggs and Sanderson's hired Keith Graham to survey and divide the subject acreage into ten (10) acre parcels. This was completed and the property was placed on the market. As the parcels were sold all Purchase Agreements were reviewed and okayed by Mr. Randall, an Attorney from Anoka, prior to Sanderson's signing them. Presently three (3) of the subject parcels have been sold and closed. The half section maps show the division into ten (10) acre parcels, and no problems were incurred until we found out a building permit would not be issued and a park fee would have to be paid. At this point in time we contacted Mr. Keith Graham the surveyor. He indicated that the surveying and sub-dividing was done in accordance with state. Statue % 462,358, Sub. Div. ~ 4 and that the City of Ramsey's ordinance was in violation of this state statue. We are requesting a variance for sub-dividing by metes and bounds, a variance because the frontage are 394.96' in lieu of the required 660' Also we would like to request a waiver of the park fee in this instance. The reason for this request is that we feel that at a future date the subject property would be split into smaller lots and the park fee could then be collected. If it were paid now and again later, the city would be collecting twice. Also we feel this park fee payment may put a real burden on Mrs. Sanderson who was the owner when the property wa~ sub-divided and who we feel is probably responsible for payment of the park fee. ?~~~ \~ c~=~k,,~.