Agenda - Council - 08/27/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

' LAW OFFICES STEFFEN, MUNSTENTEIOER, BEENS, PARTA & PETERSON 301 ANOKA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 103 JACKSON STREET ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 TELEPHONE (612) 4274MW August 14, 1985 Mr. William K. Goodrich Randall, Dehn 6 Goodrich 320 East Main Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 RE: Steven and Sandra Johnson /City of Ramsey Variance for 32 x 40 accessory structure Property Address: 7241 164th Lane N.W. City Council Meeting: July 23, 1985 Dear Mr. Goodrich: BERNARD E STEFFEN STEPHEN H. MUNSTENTEIOER RICHARD A KEENS ROBERT C. PARTA RONALD B PETERSON RUSSELL H. CROWDER LAWRENCE R. JOHNSON JAMES A. NEAL NANCIE R. THEISSEN CHARLES M. SEVKORA OF COUNSEL ROBERT W. JOHNSON As you know from our telephone conversation we have been asked to represent Steven and Sandra Johnson, owners of the property located at 7241 164th Lane N.W. in the City of Ramsey, Minnesota. As I indicated to you in our telephone conversation, the Johnson's provided us with a copy of the minutes of the council meeting of July 23, 1985 and of the findings of facts which were adopted by the council at that meeting in regard to their request for a variance. The Johnsons have also provided us a list of the neighbors in the area who also have accessory structures and the approximate size of those structures. As you know the findings which were adopted in the Johnsons case would support the grant of a variance from the city code to allow the construction of the 32 x 40 accessory structure which the Johnsons wish to construct on their property. This motion adopted by the council with respect to the variance however, failed on a 3 to 2 vote. It appears there is a substantial discrepancy between the two motions. On the same evening the council approved, on an unanimous vote, the grant of a variance for an accessory structure of 1008 square feet to Mr. James Rivers. It is our understanding the staff from the City approved the grant of the variance to the Johnsons as well as the grant of the variance to Mr. Rivers. I am uncertain why one variance was granted and the other denied. The findings do not reflect a factual basis for the difference in treatment. The Johnsons in essence would like to construct a 32 x 40 galvanized covered accessory structure. The structure would be at least 200 feet from any adjoining property and they, of course, would be willing to execute a development agreement with the City. They also realize that a small steel structure exists on their property and they would certainly be willing to remove this structure as a condition to the grant of any variance. There would be no additional driveway needed to provide access to the proposed accessory structure. I believe these items are generally specified in the minutes of the council meetings.