06/06/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board Member introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION #02~06- A RESOLUTION ADOPT~rG FLNDINGS OF FACT # RE. LATI2NG TO A REQUEST :FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 4 15N 40 DENSITY RESTRICTION AND M_IMMB-M LOT SIZE IN THeE RURAL SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, Robert Longfield hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", has properly applied for a Board of Adjustment variance to 4 in 40 density restriction and the minimum lot size in the Rural Service Area on the property generally located at 5751 .177a' Ave. and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 Echo P, Adge, Anoka County, Minnesota (the "Subject Property") NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . OF THE CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOI~L4~ COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing pursuant to Section 9.03.05 of the Ramsey City Code on June 6, 2002, and that said public hearing was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. 2. That the Subject Property is zoned R-IR Rural Residential and is located in the Rural Service Area. 3. The Applicant has made proper application to the City to subdivide his property into two single family lots. 4. That Section 9.20.11, Subd. 3of the City Code requires mn/mum lot sizes in the Rural Service Area of 10 acres and with a maximum density of 4 units per 40 acres. 5. That the special conditions causing the undue hardship do/do not result from the actions of the Applicant. 6. That if granted, the variance will/will not grant the Applicant any special privilege that is denied to other owners of lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 7. That if granted, the variance will/will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ramsey Zoning Chapter. That if granted, the variance will/will not substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially impair property values within the neighborhood. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 55