Laserfiche WebLink
PIHDIHGSThis appllcstion was rsvlewsa as .osin, meThe property is l^^^t^a^fa'^ljpprMtaateiy’zfse acres "arer^nea^iySSi l«9e'r than the 2 acre minimum lot sis Jn"ia\ zonln, aistrlct.Haracover in the 0-75- 75-250',*»re no hardcover is normally a25% hard- jne» the existing hardcover • jso-SOO' zone» existingr*'r is normally allowea In the ^3 normallyardcover is 6.3% wnetc fllowed. attached greenhouseThe applicants have unction with concurrentisSsake in the 0-75' rone, resulting r^ , 24 s.£. <br />:»a7c'tir'ora* rVarctJon‘’f\o; 5.754 to 5.654. <br />^ An 1Q49 and than <br />• The existing resiaence City orainance 4155’• „Tfea ilth all existing orainances. City , <br />faf^ibsegle^ ly Vegui r°e‘;e^t"£o^*' airne: construction <br />75' lakeshore setback r g existing residence is 57 <br />on lakeshore P^opevties addition will be <br />Lake Minnetonka. The pr P n'ltv is^not <br />limit lUrt lleTol the property that currently <br />considered as hardcover. <br />6 The applicants have ®hp^|e‘S^a tV’lake, in«ll«t sur’iace «n-o« between the house <br />:;e^:i^nVa‘i»'Us?- - 0-75' setback rone <br />7 The City council finas that while V'®o^/rhV^ •”)" may <br />|2b%Va"ntfal iV P«i^«>,“uch V AfiTilV not <br />5SS%TScn%'r%bole!gVr s^^^J^r^^Tn" the 0-75' <br />zone. <br />8. The Council finds that the applicants claim that there is no appropriate location landward of the 75' setback line at which a green house could be attached to the existing residence, is not sufficient to justify a lakeshore setback variance, especially in the light of the large lot size and available unused hardcover allowance in the 75-250' zone.9. The Council finds that approval of additional structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback is not appropriate in this circumstance where an area of the property is obviously available where construction of a fully conforirting addition could occur. The Council finds that the Interior layout of the house and the architectural continuity of room layouts of the existing house are not sufficient justification for granting of the variance to allow additional structure in the 0-75' zone.10. The Council rejects the applicants' premise that the green house is partially justified by the need for higher humidity for the comfort of the residents, finding that higher humidity can be provided within the residence by other means than a greenhouse in the 0-75' zone.11. The Council rejects the applicants' claim that the <br />variance is justified by the need for southeast exposure for <br />the proposed growing of orchids, finding that such an <br />orientation could be accomplished by an attached greenhouse <br />in a conforming location outside the 0—75' setback zone. <br />12. Council finds that granting of the requested variances <br />would result in the following violations of Section 10.08, <br />Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning code with which the <br />applicant must first comply before the requested variances <br />can be granted: <br />A) Granting of the proposed variance does not deny the <br />preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property <br />right of the applicant. The house in its current <br />condition has served as a functional residence on this <br />property for many years. There is substantial area <br />available on which to construct a conforming greenhouse <br />addition without the need for variances. <br />B) Granting the requested variance will merely serve <br />as a convenience to the applicants, but is not <br />necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or <br />difficulty. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Page 2 of 4