05/29/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. . . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF RAMSEY COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA PAGE 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE OF SHERWIN SHENK (METES & BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST) MAY 29, 1979 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Ramsey City Council held a Board of Adjustment meeting on May 29, 1979, at 15153 Nowthen Boulevard N.W., Ramsey~ MN 55303 Members Present: Mayor Gamec Councilman Cox Councilman Mickelson Councilman Reimann Councilman Sorteberg Others Present: City Engineer Raatikka City Attorney Goodrich City Administrator Schnelle Chairman Mickelson called the Board of Adjustment to order at 8:16 P.M. The purpose of this meeting is to consider a request of Mr. Shenk to subdivide by metes and bounds. Property llinvolved: Sherwin Shenk farm on Highway 10. Mr. Shenk was present with Mr. Paul Kyyhkynen, his attorney. Councilman Cox piece of land . feels t hey are requirements. said Mr. Shenk should follow the subdivision policy and plat this If Council were to say he could subdivide by metes and bounds he also concurring with the l~acre lot which is substandard to ordinance Mr. Kyyhkynen said this lot is like an outlot between the highway and railroad tracks. Mayor Gamec pointed out that this lot is smaller than what is required by ordinance. Councilman Cox said he felt a metes and bounds description can be confusing. Councilman Sorteberg said this is an isolated parcel and he doesn't feel platting is necessary; and feels he should be allowed one lot split off from his parcel. Councilman Cox pointed out that this is the second lot he is splittlling off his parcel. He also feels Council should be consistent in their handling of these requests. Attorney Goodrich said the State law says anything under five acres has to be platted. Motion by Reimann and seconded by Sorteberg to allow Sherwin Shenk to subdivide by metes and bounds and pay the park fee, reason: because it is farm land and because it isn't a contiguous parcel. Councilman Cox said he fails to see the harship. The only hardship he can see would be the one forwarded onto the future property owners. He disagrees with the intended variance from the ordinance--it is not a hardship in this case and it hasn't been indicated as such by the owners in his opinion. He feels this is inconsistent with Council's previous actions such as the 'cases of McGregor, Anderson and Westby on which they have recently taken contrary action. This is actually part of an overall parcel No. 4800. He objects to it also because it is concurring with the subdivision of smaller than a 2~ acre lot which would require a variance to the ordinance.