Agenda - Council - 12/10/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-06- 15153 Nowthen Boulevard NW · Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 City Hall: (763) 427~14~0 · Fax: (763) 427-5543 www.ci.ramsey.mn, us December 5, 2002 Ron Canner, Jr. 18090 Roanoke St. N.W. Ramsey, MN 55303 Re: Final Plat Review ofL.P. Keillor Addition Dear Mr. Canner: We are in receipt of your proposed final plat for a minor subdivision to be named L.P. Keillor Addition. The sketch plan was prepared by Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc., and is dated August 30, 2002. Staff offers the following, comments: General: The final plat is a one-lot plat to create a 2.5 acre lot from an 11 acre homestead. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 Residential, is located in the Rural Developing Area, and is subject to the shoreland regulations for a Natural Environment Water, Lot Sizes and Dimensions: The current minimum lot size in the R-I Rural Developing District is 2:5 acres. The minimmn lot size requirement for a lot in the Natural Environment Water overlay district is 80,000 square feet. In accordance w/th the approved sketch plan, the new lot created is 2.54 acres or 110,642 square feet and meets both of the iot'size requirements. Drainage: No grading plan is being requested for tiffs plat. If approved, one additional .residence will have minimal impact-on the existing draJ_nage. However, it is understood, that future property owners must take the full responsibility in ensuring that there is adequate ctrairmge away from the structures. Streets. Thenew lot created is proposed to gain access from 179'~ Lane (County Road #27). In accordance with the County's requirements outlined in their letter of'October 2, 2002, the final plat will., dedicate an additional 27 feet of fight-of-way adjacent to County Road #27. However, the final plat does need to be modified to dedicate right-of-access to the County adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, except at the permitted access.point. As a result of Anoka County's review letter dated October 2', 2002, Staff contacted Anoka County to discuss the sound mitigation measures that may be necessary as a result of this minor subdivision. It is StafFs opinion that sound mitigation via sound wall would not be necessary for this minor subdivision. However, it should be noted that the City or the County will not be installing sound mitigation on this roadway in the future. Screening by vegetation or berming should be considered by the applicant if sound mitigation is a' concern. I I ! I i '1 I I I I I I I I I I I