Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT <br />KEITH AND BARBARA RAKOS <br /> <br />1. That Keith and Barbara Rakos, hereinafter referred to as "Applicants", <br />have applied for a Board of Adjustment Variance from the required side <br />yard setback. <br /> <br />2. That the Applicants appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public <br />hearing pursuant to Section 170.013G of the Ramsey City Code on July 7, <br />1988 and that said public hearing was properly advertised and that the <br />minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of <br />these findings by reference. <br /> <br />3. That the subject property is generally known 5359 142nd Circle N.W., <br />which property is legally described as follows: <br /> <br />Lot 27, Block 2, Flintwood Hills 2nd Addition, <br />Anoka County, Minnesota <br /> <br />4. That the subject property is located in the PUD District and is <br />approximately 11,000 square feet in size. <br /> <br />5. That the Applicants are requesting a variance from the side yard <br />setback requirements of Section 170.016B of the Ramsey City Code. <br /> <br />6. That the subject property is located on the corner of 142nd Circle N.W. <br />and Dysprosium Street N.W. <br /> <br />7. That Section 170.016B of the Ramsey City Code requires a minimum side <br />yard setback on corner lots to be 20 feet. <br /> <br />8. That Section 170.016B of the Ramsey City Code requires a minimum side <br />yard setback on non~corner lots to be 10 feet. <br /> <br />9. That the Applicants are requesting a variance for an encroachment of <br />approximately 10 feet to the side yard setback requirement to construct <br />a deck on their existing home. <br /> <br />10. That the Applicants are proposing a side yard of approximately 10 <br />feet. <br /> <br />11; That the Applicants have stated that there are exceptional circumstances <br />applying to the subject property. Namely, that the subject property is <br />a corner lot and is subject to a more stringent side yard setback <br />requirement than for a non-corner lot. <br /> <br />12. That the Applicants have stated that such variance is necessary for the <br />preservation of substantial property rights. <br /> <br />13. That the special conditions, namely that the lot is a corner lot, do <br />not result from the actions of the Applicants. <br /> <br />14. That if granted, the variance will not grant the Applicants any special <br />privilege that is denied by the City Zoning Chapter to other owners of <br />property in that area. <br /> <br />B <br />