Resolution - #16-12-225 - 12/01/2016

Home

Commissioner Van Scoy introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION #16-12-225 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0974 RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING HOME AND PROPOSED DECK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14950 PERIDOT ST NW, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS LOT 6, BLOCK 5, PINEVIEW ESTATES. WHEREAS, Tara Wostrel and Justin Linder, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", properly applied to the City of Ramsey (the "City") for a variance to front yard setback standards for an existing home and a proposed deck to be located on the property legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 5, Pineview Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota; and (the "Subject Property"); and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RAMSEY PLANNING, as follows: 1) That the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission for a public hearing pursuant to Section 117-53 (Variances) of the Ramsey City Code on December 1, 2016, and that said public hearing was properly advertised, and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. 2) That the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) and the Applicant has made proper application to the City for a variance to the front yard setback requirements to bring an existing home into a legal nonconforming status as well as allow for the construction of a deck within the front yard setback which is no closer to the front lot line than the front of the primary structure. 3) That at the time of original building permit approval in 1989, the submitted drawing showed the home being set back a distance of forty-five (45) feet. 4) That when siting the home in the field, the setback appears to have been measured from the edge of the roadway rather than the front property line, which resulted in the home being constructed within the forty (40) foot front yard setback. 5) That Jeffrey Wostrel, along with Tara Wostrel, is listed as owner of the Subject Property. 6) That economic circumstances alone do not create the practical difficulties. 7) That the plight is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. 8) That the plight is not created by the Applicant.