05/05/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved for its RESOLUTION #92-05- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT # RELATING TO DENNIS CHRISTIANSEN'S REQUEST TO MOVE IN ffT-RUCTURES ONTO LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ALPACA ESTATES 3RD ADDITION (PIN 29-32-25-41-0013) o That Demnis Christiansen, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant" has properly applied for a permit t.o move in a dwelling with attached garage and an accessory garage onto the property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Alpaca Estates 3rd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota That the subject property is approximately 2.5 acres in size and is zoned R-1 Rural Residential. That the Building Official has inspected the subject structures and his report dated April 22, 1992 is hereby incorporated as a pan of these findings by reference. That the square footage of the dwelling is 1,278 square feet which is in compliance with City Cotte minimum size requirement of 912 square feet for ramblers, but does not meet the 1,400 square foot minimum established for ramblers in the Alpaca Estates covenants. That the Applicant has verbally indicated that proposed additions to the dwelling include a 4- season porch and main floor laundry room which will bring the dwelling size in excess of the 1,400 square feet required in the Alpaca Estates covenants. That Mr. Haakon James, developer of Alpaca Estates, has provided the City of Ramsey with a written statement indicating that the structures proposed to be moved into the subdivision meet the specifications of the covenants for Alpaca Estates. That foi' parcels 2.5 acres in size and greater, City Code limits garage and accessory structure space to 2,064 square feet. That th, attached garage proposed to be moved onto the site measures 624 square feet; the accessory garage measures 936 square feet; the total square footage of the two garages is 1,560 square feet, which is in compliance with City Code. The motion for the. adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: