Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION #21-183 <br />RESOLUTION DENYING AN EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN <br />ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT <br />AT 16206 SAPPHIRE STREET NW <br />WHEREAS, William Cowette III, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant," have <br />requested an Easement Encroachment Agreement to maintain an existing thirteen foot by thirty- <br />foot (13' x 30') Deck (the "Deck") within a drainage and utility easement (the "Easement") on the <br />property legally described as follows: <br />Lot 14, Block 2 Sweetbay Ridge <br />(the "Subject Property") . <br />WHEREAS, during review of an open code enforcement case, it was discovered that there <br />is an existing, detached accessory structure located within the Easement; and <br />WHEREAS, the Applicant applied for a deck and was denied in August 2017; and <br />WHEREAS, the Deck has been placed in last 5 years without a permit since ordinance <br />requiring building permit for certain accessory structures; and <br />WHEREAS, the principle structure building plans did include a future option for a deck <br />out of the easement; and <br />WHEREAS, the Applicant installed the deck on the property after the denial. <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 the Applicant shall remove the Deck on the Subject Property in 30 days; August 26, 2021. <br />2. That Ramsey City Staff shall be authorized to hire a contractor to remove the portion of the <br />Deck encroaching the Easement if the Deck is not removed by August 26, 2021. <br />3. That the Applicant will be assessed fees for hiring a contractor if the Deck is not removed by <br />August 26, 2021. <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 />