07-18-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 |-r \ toiling ril* #1303 Pag* 2 of 3roMovad apiproxlMtaly 40' of ftnclng. Staff re<|\iastad that nr. Flahar giv# thm Rezabaka tba taction of fencing raaoaad until this Mttar wat ratolead. it it ttafft undarttanding that th* Fiahara ara ogtotad to the relocating of the aubjact fancing within hr. Razabaka lot linaa. In aarly ditcuationa with hr. Fiahar, whan hr. Fithar attuaad that the fencing waa located within hit lot line* there waa diacuaaion about the inatallation of the new fencing and ataff adwiaad that variances would be raquir&d. Unfortunately Hr. Rezabak was not aware that to relocate th* €i* high privacy fence raguirad variance approval alto. One* again, please Exhibit I. Rota that 20* of the diaputed section of fancing is located out of th* 75* setback area and can be relocated within Ratabaka ioi line, 40* it located within th* lakathora protected area, requiring th* nacattary setback variances. At hr. Rezabak advised, 13* has •^*^**^y been reinstalled within his property lines. The applicant does not plan to install a new fence, ha seeks only pareission to reinstall the fencing that had existed on what ha thought was within hit property when he purchased his hone. Review Exhibit E. Applicant's attorney has already stated that th* judicial deterninatIona of th* torrence action made no claim as to the ownership of the existing iaproveronts that encroach th* subject lot line, but it clearly would appear from an observation of th* property that the fencing was Installed by th* person who Installed all of the fencing on the north and south lot lines of th* Rezabak property. Once again, the application Involves th* relocation of 40* of fencing within th* southeast yard of the Rezabak property located approxiaately 35* from the east shore line of Lake Minnetonka. Smggested Issttes for Consideration 1. Are th* circunstances surrounding the structure unique to thi* property or cosmon throughout the City? 2. Does the location of th* 40’ of continuous privacy fencing create a hazard or present a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare? 3. Has th* applicant created the hardship within this case? Will approval of this variance be considered nerely a convenience for the applicant? How similar is this application to the applications filed as a result of storm daauige? 4. Does the fact that we are dealing with an existing fence and not installation of new fencing have any bearing on these considerations? Alternatives of Action and Receasary Findings A. To deny the lakeshore setback variance application of the applicants based on following findings: 1. Applicant has not demonstrated sufficent hardships to warrant approval of the setback variance. 2. Negative precedent would be established in the review of future applications dealing with requests for structures within the lakeshore protected area. jsmma W£ii t J i * I i ^ ’*