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/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />22. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicant. <br />23. That, if granted, the variance will/will not alter the locality' s essential character. <br />RESOLUTION #15-07-162 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />