7.6. SR 10-16-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Backus - V 95-10 Page 4 September 26, 1995 the stream/ditch. Relocation of the stream would require the removal of a i stand of oak trees which provides a buffer between the subdivision and railroad tracks. The relocation of the stream/ditch would also involve the excavation of a small hill that would likely lead to an erasion problem .n the future. The variance was caused by a unique circumstance stemming from confusion between the developer, city, county and DNR regarding jurisdiction of the stream/ditch when Meadowvale Heights was platted in 1993. It would now be very difficult to try and remedy this situation due to the fact that the infrastructure related to the subdivision is already in place (i,e. streets, sewer and water lines, etc.) The variance would not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood wherein the property is situated. Both Lats 3 and 4, Block 2, Meadowvale Heights Second Addition are buffered on both the east and west side by a wetland. Due to the distance between the adjacent homes within the plat - approximately 150 feet -the setback variances will blend with adjoining neighbors anal not be out of character for the particular area. Recommendation -: Staff recommends. approval of the 20 foot shoreline setback variance from an unnamed tributary and a five foot front yard setback variance from 192-1/2 Lane based on the following findings. 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship by creating a situation where legal lots of record would be unbuildable. 2. A stream setback variance and minor front yard setback variance are a more environmentally sound alternative to the other option of relocating the stream/ditch. Relocation of the stream would require the removal of a stand of oak trees which provides a buffer between the subdivision and railroad tracks.: The relocation of the stream/ditch would also involve the excavation of a small hill that would likely lead to an erosion problem in the future. 3. The variance was caused by a unique circumstance stemming from confusion between the developer, city, county and DNR regarding jurisdiction of the stream/ditch when Meadowvale Heights was platted in 1993. It would now be very difficult to try and remedy this situation due to the fact that the infrastructuxe related to the subdivision is already in place (i.e. streets, sewer and water lines, etc.) 4. The variance would not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, • safety, or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood wherein