Laserfiche WebLink
8. That the Applicant ultimately desires to subdivide the Subject Property to create one(1)new <br /> buildable lot to accommodate a single level living style home. <br /> 9. That the Applicant wanted to understand if a variance to lot size would be possible prior to <br /> expending the necessary funds for a request for a Minor Subdivision. <br /> 10. That the newly created lot would be equal or greater in size to all surrounding residential <br /> properties. <br /> 11. That there are wetlands and floodplain on the Subject Property. <br /> 12. That the Applicant had the Anoka Conservation District (ACD) conduct a Site Visit and <br /> identify potential non-wetland areas. <br /> 13. That the ACD did provide an exhibit that indicates an area approximately 0.65 acres in size <br /> that appears to be upland (buildable). <br /> 14. That a Wetland Delineation, approved by the Lower Rum River Water Management <br /> Organization (LRRWMO), would be required as part of an application for a Minor <br /> Subdivision of the Subject Property. <br /> 15. That the likely upland area identified by the ACD appears to correspond with non-floodplain <br /> areas according to the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map in effect. <br /> 16. That the Applicant dug a pond and rerouted a drainage ditch in 1985-1986,with the necessary <br /> approvals but that it does not appear that a new drainage easement that encumbered the <br /> rerouted ditch was ever provided. <br /> 17. That both lots would meet the minimum lot width requirement of 200 feet outlined in Section <br /> 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) of City Code. <br /> 18. That Section 117-256 (District Provisions) states that the minimum lot width at the building <br /> line shall be at least 300 feet. <br /> 19. That the lot split sought by the Applicant is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and <br /> generally consistent with Chapter 117 of City Code;the requested deviation would still result <br /> in two(2)parcels of greater size than the surrounding residential parcels,one that is 2.5 acres <br /> in size and one that is approximately 1.9 acres in size. <br /> 20. That economic circumstances alone do not create the practical difficulties. <br /> 21. That the plight is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br /> 22. That the plight was not created by the Applicant. <br /> 23. That, if granted, the variance will not alter the locality's essential character. <br /> RESOLUTION#15-07-162 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />