05/03/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

not see why he would have to give up his land. They should have some idea and plot it out now instead of throwing up houses and not knowing how they will ever get it straightened out. · With the property being over 1,300 feet long, if they were to put a City street in the length of it, it exceeds the length for cul-de-sacs. To actually get this property developed correctly there would be four or five variances needed for it to be in compliance. · The neighbor directly across the street from his house and the Swanson property applied to have a pole shed put up on his property; his driveway would have come out right across from this driveway. He was denied that application from the County because they do not want more access onto CR 64. There is a very lethal spot right below the crest of the hill, and he does not think it is a safe spot for a driveway. · He has researched this property in the past, and the legal description given tonight is not the true legal description. A realtor bought it and wrote the legal description himself and assumed that the length of the 40 was 1,320 feet. However, County measurements take up their excess on the north and west sides. His survey shows 1,331 lf4 feet instead of 1,320 feet, so there is a discrepancy between the north and the south boundary. The easement that would go onto this property would probably have to cross the land that there is not clear title to. That should be cleared up before anything is done. · With the safety issues and all these other things he would like to see the City reconsider this whole plot, rather than cause these problems down the road. Mr. Greg Matuseski, stated he lives to the west of this property and owns the property that adjoins next to it. Some of the things Mr. Enstrom said are discrepancies. Most of the property behind there is low lying; even during the summer his lawn mower squeezes up water. They will never put a road back there. The Swansons have been perfect neighbors and have done a lot of good things. They will take really good care of this property and do the right things. Chairperson Nixt arrived at 7:48 p.m. Mr. Swanson stated he is glad that Mr. Enstrom brought up that he wanted to buy this property. There were some major inaccuracies in what Mr. Enstrom stated and some things that do not matter, such as the 11 feet that the Rice family still apparently owns. His easement would not be affected by that whatsoever. There might be an 11 foot difference, but that would be fInished with a quit claim deed. Those are small things. He questioned who would buy the McCollums' property if they will not have access to it. They would then be asking to purchase an easement from him and would need to tear out his driveway and trees and redirect his driveway. The expense of all that would probably be more than the land is worth. He stated Mr. Enstrom has always wanted that easement the realtor wrote down his property line. It is never a bad idea to own land and there will eventually be development if he has to keep the acreage and put horses back there he would be fine with that as well. He has always liked living in Ramsey and they would like to stay. This was an opportunity to get land at a reasonable price because it is landlocked, and he just wants to put a driveway to go to it. Motion by Board Member Trites Rolle, seconded by Board Member Levine, to close the public hearing. Board of Adjustment/April 5, 2007 Page 6 of 10 P6