#15-07-164 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner Van Scoy introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION#15-07-164 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0949 RELATING TO A REQUEST FROM FRANK AND DOROTHY FREDERICK FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 17209 TUNGSTEN STREET NW WHEREAS,Frank and Dorothy Frederick,hereinafter referred to as the"Applicant,"have properly applied for a variance from Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) of the Ramsey City Code to encroach on the required setback for a driveway on the property generally known as 17209 Tungsten Street NW and legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 5, Fox Ridge Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota (the "Subject Property"). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the Subject Property is approximately 1.61 acres in size and is located in a Planned Unit Development(PUD) zoning district. 2. That the underlying zoning district would be R-1 Residential (Rural Developing). 3. That the Subject Property is surrounded by properties also zoned PUD (with the underlying zoning being R-1 Residential [Rural Developing]) and also abuts Fox Park to the southeast. 4. That the Subject Property has frontage along Tungsten Street NW. 5. That the Applicant purchased the property in 2014. 6. That the Applicant is proposing to construct a second driveway, consisting of concrete, from Tungsten St NW to the existing attached garage on the Subject Property. 7. That there is an existing gravel driveway presently that leads to the attached garage and wraps around the side of the garage where the Applicant parks an RV that at least of portion unlawfully encroaches into the required setback. 8. That at the time the home was constructed on the Subject Property (1994), the minimum required setback for a driveway was three (3) feet. 9. That the existing gravel driveway/surfacing is evident in aerial photo images dating back to 2001 and appears to be, at least in certain areas, right at the side property line, which would have required a variance. 10. That there is no record of a variance to encroach on the required driveway setback.