Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Bauer introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION #15-11-270 <br />RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0956 RELATING TO A REQUEST <br />FROM DOUGLAS AND VICKY FOYT FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED <br />DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 5581 148TH LANE NW <br />WHEREAS, Douglas and Vicky Foyt, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant," have <br />properly applied for a variance from Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) of the Ramsey <br />City Code to encroach on the required setback for a driveway on the property generally known as <br />5581 148th Lane NW and legally described as follows: <br />Lot 4, Block 1, Ramsey Commons 2nd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota <br />(the "Subject Property"). <br />NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE <br />CITY OF RAMSEY, ANOKA COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, as follows: <br />1. That the Subject Property is approximately 0.25 acres in size and is located in the R-1 <br />Residential (MUSA) zoning district. <br />2. That the Subject Property is surrounded by properties of similar size that are also zoned R-1 <br />Residential (MUSA). <br />3. That the Subject Property has frontage along 148th Lane NW. <br />4. That the City received a complaint stating that a driveway extension was installed within the <br />past year and across a property boundary, as well as a shed and new furnace that been <br />installed without the issuance of any permits. <br />5. That the City contacted the Applicant regarding these matters through the Code Enforcement <br />Program. <br />6. That the Applicant has since applied for a Zoning Permit for the existing shed and obtained <br />the required Building Permit for the furnace. <br />7. That while the existing shed complied with the rear yard setback of five (5) feet, it was <br />partially located within a Drainage and Utility Easement. The Applicants have relocated the <br />shed such that it still complies with the required setbacks and is outside of any easement. <br />8. That the Applicant has stated the driveway extension was installed in 2004, which predates <br />the Zoning Permit requirement. <br />9. That through a review of aerial photographs, the driveway extension is clearly visible dating <br />back to 2006, which still predates the Zoning Permit requirement. The aerial images from <br />