Laserfiche WebLink
structure on riparian lots provided that the detached accessory building comply with the <br />underlying front yard setback. <br />8. That the Scenic River Land Use District provisions were enacted in 1981. <br />9. That the principal structure on the Subject Property was constructed in 1978 and is <br />considered lawful nonconforming as it relates to setback from the OHWM from the Rum <br />River. <br />10. That the principal structure is located approximately eight -six (86) feet from the front <br />property line. <br />11. That the principal structure is located approximately thirty-one (31) feet from the bluff line. <br />12. That the principal structure is located approximately sixty (60) feet from the OHWM of the <br />Rum River. <br />13. That there is an existing attached three (3) car garage on the Subject Property. <br />14. That there is an existing in -ground pool on the Subject Property. <br />15. That the Applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four foot by forty foot (24' x 40') <br />detached accessory building on the Subject Property to provide additional storage space. <br />16. That the detached accessory building would be approximately twenty (20) feet from the bluff <br />line, sixty-five (65) feet from the OHWM, and twenty-four (24) feet from the front property <br />line. <br />17. That the proposed detached accessory building would be nearer the bluff line and OHWM <br />than the principal structure on the Subject Property as well as both principal structures on the <br />two (2) adjacent properties. <br />18. That the detached accessory building would comply with the standards in Section 117-349 <br />(Accessory Uses and Buildings) of City Code. <br />19. That the Subject Property is on the outside bend of the Rum River and thus likely may <br />experience greater bank erosion through natural water flows. <br />20. That some tree removal would be necessary to facilitate the construction of the detached <br />accessory building. <br />21. That the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has reviewed this request <br />and is not supportive of granting the variance, primarily due to the substandard setback from <br />the bluff line but also because of the substandard setback from the OHWM. <br />RESOLUTION #14-09-176 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />