Laserfiche WebLink
~'W'~q ~ I.[~_RGARET OI.$ON <br />19761 G;Z%Y ST <br /> <br />To: Mayer Hank Duitsman ~ <br /> Elk River City Coum. sel <br /> <br />Sept. ih, 1~98 <br /> <br />item No. <br /> <br />Property to be considerd. <br />Lots 2,5,6 in Countryside acres. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Request. <br />That you do not consider Lot 6 a new lot subject to paz~ient <br />of the follow~g 2 charges. <br /> A. ~ 650.00 Park dedication fee. <br /> B. ~ 61.80 Surface water management fee. <br /> <br />The Board of AUjustment at the July 28 public hearing <br />allowed separation of lots h,~,6 into 2 parcels as follows: <br /> A. Parcel 1 (Lots h & 5) <br /> B. Parcel 2 ( Lot 6 ) <br /> <br />The City Counsel at the August 17th public hearing accepted <br />the Board of Adjmst:nents reco~endation of Lots h,[,6 into <br /> two parcels. <br /> <br />Reason for reqUeSt. (Item #2 above) <br />Wecpurchased the '3 lots in 1982 and ~e were never notified <br />persona!y or ~ublica!y that our lots were reclassified as a <br />~ acre parcel'and thus subject to the 2½ acre building rule. <br /> <br />Sv~ary. <br /> A. The ~oard of Adjustments based their decision to <br /> separate the lots into parcels because for the past <br /> 16 years we were never notified that our lots had <br /> been reclassified into acreage. <br /> B. Lot 6 is not a new lot even though it has been <br /> separated rrm lots h &5. We have always owned it. <br /> C. We are asking the City Counsel to wave the two <br /> charges requested by the Staff. (Item #2 above.) <br /> <br />cc. THE ~%a£f , Scott & Steve <br /> <br /> <br />