Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION #15-07-179 <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR A <br />PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EXTENSION TO BE PARTIALLY LOCATED IN A <br />DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AT 17209 TUNGSTEN ST. NW AND <br />DECLARING TERMS OF SAME <br />WHEREAS, Frank J. and Dorothy Frederick, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant," <br />have requested an Encroachment Agreement for a driveway extension that partially encroaches <br />upon a drainage and utility easement (the "Easement") on the property generally known as 17209 <br />Tungsten St. NW and legally described as follows: <br />Lot 7, Block 5, Fox Ridge Estates, subject to easement of record, Anoka County, Minnesota <br />(the "Subject Property"). <br />WHEREAS, a legal nonconforming driveway currently exists on the Subject Property; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the Ramsey Planning Commission, on July 9, 2015, approved a Variance to <br />the setback requirement for a driveway extension that would service the attached garage and <br />parking space to the north of the garage; and <br />WHEREAS, the Ramsey Engineering Department approves of the encroachment into the <br />drainage and utility easement so long as Applicant maintains both positive drainage on the Subject <br />Property and existing grades at the property line; and <br />WHEREAS, City Council reviewed the request on , 2015. <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: <br />1. That, contingent upon the Applicant entering into an Encroachment Agreement with the City, <br />the Applicant may construct, use, and maintain the driveway extension in accordance with the <br />terms and conditions contained within the Encroachment Agreement. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br />, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br />and the following voted against the same: <br />