Resolution - #93-09-169 - 09/07/1993

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ',O Board Member Bawden introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION g93-09-169 A RESt_ LUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT g0343 RELATING TO A REQUESr I~OR A VARIANCE FROM STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS (LOT WIDTH). WH' "Applicants, width requir dwelling on' ~REAS, Lynn A. Mortenson and Marshall Williams, hereinafter referred to as , have properly applied for a Board of Adjustment variance from the minimum lot ~me~t established in Section 9.20.11 of the Ramsey City Code in order to construct a he following legally described property: That part~ of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 32, Rang ~ 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the centerline of T.H. g47, excet road; subject to easement of record. t THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF gNT OF THE CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, STATE OF ?A,~ as follows: That Ihe Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing pursuant to Se~;tio!a 9.03.05 of the Ramsey City Code on August 19, 1993 and that said public hearil g Was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorp orated as a part of these findings by reference. That. ~he .subject property identified as PIN 14-32-25-13-0003 is zoned R-1 Rural Residential and is approximately 35 acres in size. NOS ADJUSTMi MINNES0' That: &e Subject property is part of an area of approximately 115 acres under single ownen~hip~ of the applicant, Marshall Williams. That the subject property is surrounded by R-1 Rural Residential zoning. That used milaim that in lot sha3 x:tion 9.11.01 of the Ramsey City Code states that no lot shall contain any building ~ a dwelling unless it has the minimum lot width; Section 9.20.11 states that the ~m lot width in the Rural Residential District is 200 feet; Section 9.11.01 also states eases of double frontage lots where one of the streets is a county or state street, the fi'0nt on the other street. That the subject property has frontage on T.H. #47 in excess of 200 feet and 66 feet on Osmium Street N.W., an unimproved section of dedicated road right-of-way. o That th,'.~re are unique circumstances applying to the subject property that do not generally apply t~ other properties in the district; namely, that the street frontage at T.H. g47 meets the mia mm lot width requirement but access to the proposed building site is obstructed by a couni g ditch and Section 9.11.01 of City Code discourages access onto a state street when · t alternative access is possible. · That th, ~re are many suitable building sites on the subject property that do not require traversi~ ~g the County ditch. That the Applicant's representative stated at the public hearing that the need for the variance was eat nomie in nature because of the cost associated with extending and constructing Osmiu . Street N.W. a sufficient distance into the subject property to provide for minimum street frontage, I