5.9 PCSR 09-26-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Backus - V 95-10 Page 3 September 26, 1995 • in favor of relocating the stream/ditch to the south because it would involve the removal of a stand of oak trees and also the excavation of a small hill which would likely lead to an erosion problem in the future. The DNR stressed that another option be considered such as a variance which would be more environmentally sound and leave the stream/ditch intact. Without moving the stream/ditch, Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Meadowvale Heights Second Addition are unbuildable without setback variances. The attached letter dated August 29, 1995, from the applicant's engineer Jeff Shopek also explains the history of this issue. Variance The attached site plan indicates housing pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Meadowvale Heights Second Addition. The housing pads measure approximately 40 feet in width and could accommodate a typical home built in this subdivision. The applicant is proposing that the homes be located 30 feet from the stream and 25 feet from the front property line which would necessitate a 20 foot stream setback variance and a five foot front yard setback variance. Both Lots 3 and 4 are somewhat isolated and are buffered on either side by wetlands to the east and west of the respective parcels. The • applicant is proposing a five foot front yard variance from 192 -1/2 Lane to try and provide as much of a buffer as possible from the rear of the home to the stream/ditch. Again, without the variance, both parcels would be considered unbuildable. DNR Review The application was sent to Dan Lais, DNR area hydrologist for review. Due to the fact of the confusion over the jurisdiction of the subject stream and the fact that the variance is a better environmental alternative to relocating the stream/ditch, the DNR did not have a problem with the variance as proposed. Variance Requirements Staff refers the Planning Commission to Section 900.40 of the City of Elk River Code of Ordinances for the five standards to consider when reviewing a variance. Staff also refers the Planning Commission to the applicant's letter addressing the five standards. Staff feels that there are adequate findings to grant the variance from the stream and front property line. • Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship by creating a situation where legal lots of record would be unbuildable. • • A stream setback variance and minor front yard setback variance are a more environmentally sound alternative to the other option of relocating