04/14/2004 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Mr. Root made a friendly amendment to a dd a condition 17: To add screening along the south side of the duplex 3-4 evergreen trees, 6 feet tall. Mr. Tralle did not accept the friendly amendment. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair Rafferty recessed the hearing at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. C. Variance for St. Paul Water Services, Peltier Lake dam site Staff stated St. Paul Regional Water Servi ces owns numerous pieces of property on and near lakes in Lino Lakes and Centerville. On e of these parcels incl udes the dam between Peltier Lake and George Watch Lake. St. Paul Water wishes to divide this parcel, keep the part with the dam, and sell the rest of Anoka County to include in the regional park. Because the parcel has no road frontage and is shaped very oddly, several variances are needed. No development will occur on the site. Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded approval of the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and lack of road fr ontage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Anoka County shall grant an access easement to the dam parcel from CSAH 14. 2. Anoka County shall combine the land th at does not include the same with an existing parcel to avoid crea ting a completely new parcel. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend the va riance request for lot area, lot width and road frontage subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s Apri l 14, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. D. Variance for 1612 Birch Street Staff stated applicants have submitted a request for variances from requirements for minimum lot area and lot width. Their prope rty at 1612 Birch St. comprises of 15 acres. They wish to divide the prope rty into two parcels. This would be a minor subdivision and does not require public review: it is done administratively. However, the subdivision proposal does not meet lot dimens ion requirements. The property owners have requested the variances from those requirements. Staff presented its analysis and recommende d denying the request because the proposed variances would provide for a minor subdi vision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the allowable growth under the growth management policy. The vari ance requested is based on economic considerations. Mr. Hyden asked which acreage was the home s itting on. Mr. Smyser replied it was on the proposed Parcel B on the survey.