#11-11-220 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Elvig introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: ( "Subject Property") RESOLUTION #11 -11 -220 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0894 RELATING TO A REQUEST FROM ANTHONY REED FOR AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MAINTAIN TWO DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16101 RAMSEY BOULEVARD NW. WHEREAS, the City of Ramsey received an application from Anthony Reed for an amended conditional use permit to maintain a second dwelling on the property generally known as 16101 Ramsey Boulevard NW and legally described as follows: South 138.4 feet of West 825 feet of Southwest quarter of Northeast quarter Section 15 -32 -25 as measured along West and South lines thereof excluding road subject to easement of record. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA that the findings of fact relating to the request are determined to be as follows: 1. That on November 28, 2000, the City approved a conditional use permit to maintain two dwellings on the Subject Property, provided that the occupant of the accessory dwelling was related to the occupant of the primary dwelling. The findings of fact and permit for that approval are hereby incorporated as reference. Said documents are in City files and available upon request. 2. That on August 18, 2011, Anthony Reed (the "Applicant "), properly applied for an amended condition use permit to maintain two (2) dwellings on the Subject Property. 3. That on August 25, 2011, the City invoked a 60 -day extension to the 60 -day time limit for reviewing the conditional use permit as permitted by Minnesota Statute 15.99. 4. That the Applicant appeared before the Ramsey Planning Commission for a public hearing pursuant to Section 117 -51 of the City Code on October 6, 2011, and that said public hearing was properly advertised, and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. 5. That the original property owner, the Uptons, rented the detached accessory apartment (the "Accessory Apartment" to unrelated persons. 6. That subsequently, the City granted a rental license to the Subject Property to allow the rental of the Accessory Apartment, contrary to the original CUP approved in 2000. 7. That the Applicant purchased the Subject Property with understanding that the Accessory Apartment could be leased in exchange for rent for consideration.