Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />In this situation, the city's hands are not clean and it would be <br />inappropriate to come down hard on the builder; the right thing to do under <br />the circumstances is approve the variance. The matter has to be cleared up <br />one way or another to prevent problems in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Uhde stated that if the variance is not approved, the illegal <br />structure location on record will the finance company to reject the sale at <br />closing; this will result in a string of lawsuits in which the city would <br />also be named; lots of money will be spent on legal fees and the house will <br />still be there. Both Regency Homes and the city made some errors in this <br />case, corrective action should be taken to resolve the problem and from <br />Regency's standpoint, it won't happen again. <br /> <br />Residents of the area stated that some unfortunate errors have been made <br />but it makes more sense to approve the variance and resolve problems rather <br />than take no action or deny the variance and make the problem bigger. One <br />of the residents noted that Building Official Erickson is very competent <br />and very busy, which may account for the error on his part. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hendriksen stated that correcting the erosion problems on the <br />site should not hinge on the sale of the home and inquired why the builder <br />has not initiated those tasks. <br /> <br />Mr. Uhde stated that the first sale of the home fell through and the <br />builder was not in a position to put more money into the home until a <br />second buyer was found. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Holm and seconded by Commissioner Shumway to table <br />any action regrading Mr. Marshall Pearson's request for a variance until <br />Regency Homes can provide a certified lot survey indicating the structure <br />location as it relates to scenic river setbacks and easements. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner LaDue noted that the certified lot survey <br />might reveal that City Council and Anoka County approval for a variance <br />to encroach the scenic river easement is also necessary; directed Ms. <br />Norris to research whether or not that variance would hinge on whether or <br />not this Board of Adjustment approves the variance from Rum River setback. <br />Chairman Zimmerman noted that tabling of this case should not prevent the <br />building from correcting the erosion problems. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Shumway, <br />LaDue, Terry, Holm and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Commissioner Howell. <br /> <br />Case #3: Request For Variance From Section 170.05 Of The City Code <br />Re~arding Maximum Permitted Sizes For Identification Signs; <br />Case Of Mr. Richard Dreher Of Riversbend Associates <br />Partnership: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Richard Dreher stated that most communities do allow identification <br />signs of in neighborhood shopping centers on major thoroughfares to be <br />larger than what Ramsey allows for in it's ordinance. Riversbend <br />Associates is requesting a sign size of 182 square feet; it would be 2 feet <br />below Ramsey's maximum height limitation. The sign would not be <br />overbearing considering considering the intersection of two major streets <br />Board of Adjustment/September 24, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />