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