09/19/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairperson Stodola provided an alternate example of lots that could be combined to arrange the lots in another manner to be similar, which would provide the developer with a loss of one lot compared to a loss of two lots as proposed by staff. Board Member Valentine asked what the proposal for access would be if the proposal did not move forward as proposed for the cul-de-sac. City Planner Anderson stated that the alternative would be that the cul-de-sac would be no more than 600 feet. He explained the equipment that is used for snow removal on a cul-de-sac. Councilmember LeTourneau asked if the road would be built now, or whether that would be a possibility for the future, if the access for the right-of-way for the road were to be dedicated now. He asked why the 1,200-foot cul-de-sac would be allowed if the road is not going to be dedicated. City Planner Anderson replied that the corridor would be dedicated at this time, so that the road could be constructed in the future should that be deemed necessary. He explained that there would be significant wetland impacts should the road be constructed now or in the future. Councilmember LeTourneau asked where the wetland mitigation would occur should that roadway be constructed. City Planner Anderson replied that would be decided by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO), noting that if that is the choice the applicant would need to submit that to the LRRWMO for a decision. He stated that if the roadway connection were provided through this application, the responsibility would then be on the developer. He provided additional background information on wetland banking and the ability to purchase credits. Board Member Valentine asked if staff is confident that the developer is prepared to take on the complexity of wetland mitigation. City Planner Anderson replied that the developer is more than competent to go through that process. Councilmember LeTourneau stated that the wetlands may come from other areas outside of Ramsey but noted that if the LRRWMO manages the choice, the benefits will benefit the watershed as a whole including Ramsey. City Planner Anderson stated that he is unsure if the developer is thinking about using the wetland bank but noted that is simply an option. Board Member Hiatt asked if the potential exists for the developer to receive a variance for the 1,200-foot cul-de-sac which would avoid the wetland impacts. He asked should the variance be issued, would that then set a precedent for other cases. City Planner Anderson stated that is a possibility and explained the issuance of a variance is not precedent setting as each case must be reviewed uniquely on its own merits. Environmental Policy Board / September 19, 2016 Page 3 of 5