My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/17/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
2015
>
Agenda - Environmental Policy Board - 08/17/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 12:01:47 PM
Creation date
10/15/2015 2:34:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Environmental Policy Board
Document Date
08/17/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
258
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5.01: Consider Request for a Variance to Minimum Lot Size Requirement to Pursue a <br />Minor Subdivision on the Property Located at 16520 Germanium St NW; Case of <br />Paul and Mary Johnson <br />City Planner Anderson stated that this request is not one the Board would normally review but <br />there are a couple of natural resource aspects to this request. He stated that the lot is 4.4 acres in <br />size and is located in an R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) district. The request is for a simple <br />lot split to create an additional buildable lot. Most of the parcels are about 1 acre in size up to <br />1.5 acres. The proposed split would result in a lot size of approximately 1.9 acres. Other <br />neighborhood lot sizes are under the 2.5 minimum threshold because of a different lot standard at <br />the time of development. This proposed lot split would result in one parcel being twice the size <br />of some of the neighboring lots. That lot would meet the 2.5 minimum threshold but the other <br />lot would be slightly less. He stated that there would be enough road frontage. He stated the <br />reason Staff is routing this request through the EPB is because portions of the property are part <br />of the national wetland inventory and it has a 100-year and 500-year floodplain zone. He stated <br />that there are no prohibitions for the 500-year flood zone. The applicant has worked with the <br />Anoka Conservation District (ACD), but an official wetland delineation has not been conducted. <br />A site visit was conducted by a wetland specialist who identified about 0.65 acres of contiguous <br />upland within the area proposed to be subdivided into a separate, buildable lot. If the variance is <br />approved to allow for a lesser lot size, Staff would recommend it being contingent upon <br />completion of a wetland delineation and survey work to verify that there is sufficient buildable <br />area to construct a new single family home. <br />Board Member Hiatt asked City Planner Anderson to explain what was done versus a wetland <br />delineation. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that a wetland specialist has visited the site and walked the <br />property and then used available contour information to make a general determination of a non - <br />wetland area, which may be approximately 28,000 square feet. He stated that a wetland <br />delineation would involve a more detailed report and it would be certified by the Lower Rum <br />River Water Management Organization, which has authority over wetlands. If the on -site visit <br />is on par with what the delineation would show, there would be sufficient area to accommodate a <br />single family home on the lot. It does not look like it would have any direct impact on the <br />wetland areas with the exception of a driveway. If there is no other way to access the upland <br />area, the applicant would need to find ways to minimize the impact on the wetlands. He stated <br />that City code does not have a minimum buildable area requirement just lot size requirements. <br />Board Member Hiatt asked about the smaller neighborhood lot sizes. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that the City's current lot size requirement was not in place when <br />the subdivision was approved. He does not know why this lot was left as such as a large piece. <br />He stated that the applicant is trying to determine if it is possible to deviate from the minimum <br />lot size requirement on one lot before he incurs costs related to a minor plat. <br />Board Member Hiatt asked if part of the applicant's argument is that other lots are the same size <br />so his should be treated similarly. <br />Environmental Policy Board / June 15, 2015 <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.