Dale Denn, Homestead Septic, applicant, and Lincoln Castle, property owner, have made application for a variance for property located at 4935 Eagle Creek Boulevard.

VARIANCE CONSIDERATION
The applicant is proposing to construct a new Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) for the property owner at 4935 Eagle Creek Blvd., as the current septic system is failing and the property owner is experiencing substantial backing up of their sewer.

The City, applicant, and County have spent considerable time trying to locate a new septic system that would meet all of the criteria, with the proposed plan the best alternative that addresses the issue and would be the most acceptable location due to the limitations from the current system, setback limitations to their and adjacent properties wells, and the existing bluff along the rear of the property. There are no plans by the City to install public sanitary service lines for this or the adjacent property in the near future due to the significant distance from an existing service. The cost to extend services and hook up to city sanitary for just this one property would be not feasible.

Bluff is defined as a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment with an average slope of more than 18% over a distance of 50 feet. The Bluff Impact Zone is defined as the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. The attached site aerial identifies the location of the bluff on this property. The applicant has provided a concept site plan showing what is being proposed, and a short narrative supporting this proposal.

City Planning does not feel that this replacement system will adversely affect this and the adjacent properties. What is proposed is the least impactful option, and is generally supported by the city and Scott County.

FINDINGS:
Section 151.015, Subd. B, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings for purposes of discussion by the Board. The Board may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit, as well as propose other findings.

Criterion l
Criterion l
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following:

1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; Finding 1.A. The applicant is proposing a reasonable use of the property, in a manner that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code requirements. The property owner is experiencing a failing sewage system, and construction of a replacement system that could meet all city and county requirements is not possible. The design they are proposing is the least impactful to this and surrounding properties.

1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding 1.B. The proposed replacement system in the location identified is the only option available to them. The property is narrow and the bluff is close to the rear of the residential structure. The well for this property and adjacent homes are in the front yard and locating this system would in the front yard would not allow for compliance with setbacks to the wells.

1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.C. The landowner did not create this situation. They are only dealing with how to install a new system that minimizes impacts on adjacent properties and the bluff impact zone.

1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding 1.D. The variance will not alter the character of the area as the replacement system will generally be in the same location as the existing failing system, albeit slightly closer to the bluff impact zone.

1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. They include physical limiting considerations.

Criterion 2:
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the chapter.

Finding 2 The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Chapter 151 (Zoning).

Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3: The request is not a use variance.

Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will ensure compliance to protect the adjacent
properties.

Finding 4: Should the Board support this request, they should provide conditions that would ensure some form of protection of the adjacent properties.

Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet additional criteria:
Finding 5: (Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)