Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Elk River City Council Minutes <br />October 16.1995 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />PUBLIC STREETS. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT NO NEW DRIVEWAYS <br />WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NEW PARCEL AND AN EASEMENT WOULD <br />BE GRANTED TO USE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONVEY ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES <br />TO THIS PROPERTY OWNER THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA <br />WOULD NOT HAVE WITH A SIMILAR SIZED PARCEL IN TERMS OF NUMBER <br />AND SIZE OF PROPOSED LOTS. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. <br /> <br />7.6. Variance Reauest bv Dennis Backes. Public Hearina. Case No. V 95-10 <br /> <br />Planning Assistant Gary Schmitz informed the Council that Dennis Backes is <br />requesting a 20 foot shoreline setback variance from an unnamed tributary and <br />a five foot front yard setback from 192-1/2 Lane. Gary Schmitz reviewed the <br />staff report on this issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Dennis Backes. developer. approached the Council regarding his request for a <br />variance. <br /> <br />There being no comments from the public. Mayor Duitsman closed the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Gary Schmitz indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval <br />of the variance request. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE 20 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK <br />VARIANCE FROM AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY AND A FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD <br />SETBACK VARIANCE FROM 192-1/2 LANE AS REQUESTED BY DENNIS BACKES BASED <br />ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: <br /> <br />1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE <br />HARDSHIP BY CREATING A SITUATION WHERE LEGAL LOTS OF RECORD <br />WOULD BE UNBUILDABLE. <br /> <br />2. A STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE AND MINOR FRONT YARD SETBACK <br />VARIANCE ARE A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND ALTERNATIVE TO THE <br />OTHER OPTION OF RELOCATING THE STREAM/DITCH. RELOCATION OF THE <br />STREAM WOULD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF A STAND OF OAK TREES WHICH <br />PROVIDES A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISION AND RAILROAD TRACKS. <br />THE RELOCATION OF THE STREAM/DITCH WOULD ALSO INVOLVE THE <br />EXCAVATION OF A SMALL HILL THAT WOULD LIKELY LEAD TO AN EROSION <br />PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />THE VARIANCE WAS CAUSED BY A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE STEMMING <br />FROM CONFUSION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER. CITY. COUNTY AND DNR <br />REGARDING JURISDICTION OF THE STREAM/DITCH WHEN MEADOWVALE <br />HEIGHTS WAS PLATTED IN 1993. IT WOULD NOW BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY <br />AND REMEDY THIS SITUATION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE <br /> <br />e <br />