Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />new boundary removes these business from the Wild and Scenic River District. <br />The proposed boundary will also remove the impediments to enhancing these <br />businesses and consequently the aesthetics along the river can be improved. <br /> <br />2. Ordinance chan~es to accommodate urban residential development <br /> <br />Urban services being provided to residential development along the Mississippi River <br />will not detract from the values that cause it to be included in the Wild and Scenic River <br />District. Undoubtedly, water quality is better served by residential development with <br />urban services versus on-site septic systems. In addition, controlled storm water with <br />adequate treatment and retention, as is the case with urban development under best <br />management practices, better addresses run-off quality and quantity than does the typical <br />storm water plan in a rural subdivision. <br /> <br />What will detract from these values are more houses being allowed along Mississippi <br />and/or allowing houses to be closer to the river. The city proposes to keep the frontage <br />and setback requirements as specified in the DNR's ordinance. Consequently, the <br />number of houses allowed along the river and how far back they are from it is not <br />changed from the city's version of the ordinance to the DNR's. However, the city would <br />like certain areas to develop with urban service, providing the benefits listed above. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Regrettably, the lot sizes proposed in DNR's draft ordinance economically preclude the <br />creation of lots that are served with urban services. The city is proposing to modify these <br />lot size requirements so they are compatible with urban lots and its comprehensive plan <br />and can see no negative effect on the Mississippi River by doing so. <br /> <br />Finally the city is proposing to remove reference to duplexes, triplexes, and quads in <br />unsewered areas because it is felt that these structures concentrate septic systems too <br />densely. <br /> <br />3. Specific chan~es to the DNRs version of the Wild and Scenic River Ordinance <br />As you can note, the City of Elk River is proposing very few changes to the ordinance. <br />The changes are as follows: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A. The definition of a "Bluff' from the Shoreland Ordinance is proposed to be <br />added. <br />B. The city is proposing that all unsewered riparian and nonriparian lots in the <br />District be a minimum of2.5 acres. The current ordinance allows 20,000 <br />square foot riparian lots and 40,000 square foot nonriparian lots in some areas. <br />The city feels these lot sizes concentrate septic systems too densely. <br />C. The city's ordinance allows urban services anywhere within the city limits, <br />but does so with the current ordinance's unsewered lot frontage (100 feet), <br />setback (100 feet) and minimum riparian lot size (20,000 square feet). <br />Nonriparian lot sizes are proposed to be those dictated by city code. The <br />exception to this is in Sections 33 & 34, T33N, R26W, where the current <br />