Agenda - Council - 03/24/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

six (6) month request for delay in filing the subject plat. Your motion on this case would be as follows: Motion by seconded by to approv~ of granting a six '(6~month extensiom of time in {iling Meadow brook Estates final plat, which would expire September 21, 1981. Voting no: Motion carried. Voting yes: CASE #5: CASE #6: RIT PROPERTIES REQUESTING BUILDING STATUS OF PART O~ RON~OFmm~~;~"~n~HIP 32- RANGE 25: THE~~- 0FSECTION 4, TOWNSHIP ._______------ You will find enclosed.ts enclosure (D2-c) a memo from the City Attorney to me descrlbz g this situation- This memo is self explanatory. The lando~ner desires to sell the ~0 acre tract along with the 66 feet strip as one parcel. As you know, in the past, it has been the City policy and now by ordinance to require a 200 ft. frontage for newly created lots in order to ~btain a building permit. This has especially been true in regards to lots created through new subdivisions. This particular 40 acre tract is not a new lot or subdivision, but it does not have 200' frontage on a public road, and it's accompanying 66' tract was illegally created. It should be noted that the 66' tract was not created by the present owner. Because of the uniqueness of this ~0 Acre tract, staff recommends that a variance be granted to the 200' public road requirement, legitamize the 66' tract and require a development contract whereby the landowner agrees that only one building permit will be granted on the entire 40 acre tract and that it will not be f~rther subdivided unless and until the 66' wide strip is accepted as a City street. Also the agreement should include a recordahle restriction' whereby the landowner and his assigns waives any claims they may have against the City resulting f~om'the inability of emergency vehicles to reach the home because Of any inadequancy of'the 66' wide access S~3rip. ..MINNESOTA.DOTREPLY~TO.C~S~.0206.(T2Hi.~7) RAiLROAD CROSSING: IN EnclosUre (D2-d) contains C°mmissioner Braum, Minnesota D~partment of T~ansportation, letter dated March 10, 1981 in response to ou~ Resolution 81-~ which was in regards to railroad crossing being blocked'by trains which wOuld impede emergency vehicles serving the City of Ramsey. EnclOsure (D2-e) contains your resolUtiOn 81-2 which is submitted as informational only. · counclf ~Action: Your action' would be first to note the response you got in regards to your resolution. Secondly, take action as recommended in the Commissioner's letter.