Laserfiche WebLink
<br />anyone else, there is no homeowners association, and no other private or public party other than <br />what is standard for drainage and utility easements that have any right to the property. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated more or less, this lot was left aside when the original development came in, <br />which he remembers. Depending on the way the vote goes, the applicant may want to look at <br />there being some people who wanted to buy that particular lot if he does not want to just hold on <br />to it. If the appeal is denied he would hope they would not put up a six foot wire fence. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen clarified according to the Board of Adjustment minutes, the reason <br />for the denial of the variance is not related to the question about the encumbrance. The City <br />Code is clear on the issue for the need of City water and sewer before building any new lots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig indicated he spoke with several residents regarding this. One of the things <br />that concerns him is that most projects that are put together as 2.5 acre developments have a <br />variable in the lot size. However, with this development it is not a blend; all of these frontages <br />are all the same. To take something less requires sewer and water. One of Mr. Wiech's <br />statements was that it will probably develop at some point in time, and he would tend to agree. <br />He would have to support the Board's decision. He would like to open the discussion after the <br />decision has been made tonight. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised on page 172 of the Council's packet, the top paragraph states <br />that the City Attorney has reviewed the title and determined there are no encumbrances on the <br />outlot. Mr. Goodrich stated he has absolutely confirmed that no one has any entitlement to the <br />property other than the landowner. He would hope no Councilmembers consider any possible <br />encumbrances in their decision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen explained when he referred to the homework being done with this <br />purchase, what he meant to say is that it is clear that the City Code explicitly prohibits the <br />creation of new building on lots in the MUSA without connection to City services unless the lot <br />is at least 5 acres in size. He believes Mr. Wiech has dean titleto the propeli)' based upon what <br />the Council has been told. <br /> <br />Mr. Wiech stated in the real estate arena people have come before the Council with a situation <br />where a variance is part of an appropriate action.' In this case they have delivered to the <br />Engineering office all of the requirements. The well meets the requirements, and they have a <br />primary and secondary system. At this point, based on what he has heard from the Council he <br />would like to withdraw his appeal. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec asked if action needs to be taken by the Council. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich asked if the applicant feels he received appropriate due process and an <br />opportunity to be heard. <br /> <br />Mr. Wiech stated he feels based on the reputation Ramsey has around town, and through this <br />process and learning more about the City of Ramsey and what the City is willing to do, and with <br />the economic condition of the projects within the City, he will withdraw his appeal and move on. <br /> <br />City Council / August 28, 2007 <br />Page 17 of 33 <br /> <br />P65 <br />