03/03/80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TO: FROM: DATE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LLOYD G. SCHNELLE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR MARCH 3, 1980 CASE OF: Vernal T. Weaver 16169 Jarvis Street N.W., Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 Date of application: February 8, 1980 Fee Paid $50.00 Type of Request: Variance to subdivide by Metes & Bounds, reference Section 170.0312 Restrictions on Filing and Recbrding Conveyances BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mr. Weaver previously made a request to subdivide by metes and bounds in April, 1977. He appeared before the CityCouncil on April 11, 1977 and on April 25, 1977, requesting to subdivide his 24 acre parcel into three parcels: Parcel A-proposed as a 12.99 Ac.+/- parcel; Parcel B-proposed as a 6 acre parcel and Parcel C-proposed as a 6 acre parcel. All three parcels have 300 feet or more on Jarvis Street N.W. At that time, the Council made a motion to approve the subdivision by metes and bounds, provided that an easement of 27 feet be given along the entire part of Jarvis Street, and a 27 foot easement on the south, north, west and east sides of the plat and that a park fee be paid. Mr. Weaver appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 6, 1977, explaining that because of the easement requirements on his property that buyers have cancelled the purchase of the property. Planning & Zoning at that time recommended that the City Council consider withdrawing their request for the additional 27 foot easement on the Vern Weaver property. On October 11, 1977, the City Council presented a "Findings of Fact" .stating their reasons for disapproving the Planning & Zoning recommendations Mr. Weaver's attorney filed another application to split the land as first proposed on February 8, 1980. He stated that he did not understand the need to go through this process since Mr. Holker had a similar situation and sued the City and won the case. 1 did refer this matter to Attorney Goodrich and he instructed that the City ask him now to appear before the Board of Adjustment to appeal this matter if he is dissatisfied with the original decision. Mr. Weaver4/indicate~l to me that he did not want to appeal, but rather, wished to make reapplicat'ion since there is a chance that the Legislature may adopt a new bill sometime this month changing the State Statute to require ten acre minimum lot sizes instead of five for filing without sub- division. (The State Statute he is referring to' is the same one that won the Holker lawsuit in Holker's favor).!~;~?J