Laserfiche WebLink
D) The applicants* suggestion that past dredging of the lagoon <br />adjacent to the property is a hardship because it has made the <br />lot area smaller, is not valid. In fact, the dry buildable lot <br />area has not changed substantially since 1970, as is verified by <br />review of the 1970 air photo maps on exhibit at City Hall. The <br />applicants* house was constructed in 1972, prior to the current <br />lakeshore zoning standards which were adopted in 1975. However, <br />the house itself essentially meets the current 75* lakeshore/10 <br />side/35* street setbacks. Without a doubt, this property is very <br />restricted by current zoning ordinances given the substandard <br />size of this lot in a 1 acre zone. However, these restrictions <br />are similar throughout the neighborhood and the community, and <br />there is nothing unique or unusual about this particular <br />situation. <br />E) The applicants* statement of unusual property conditions <br />indicates that the surface of applicants* rear yard is not <br />visible from Lake Minnetonka, and that the existence of a pool or <br />proposed decking surrounding the pool cannot be seen from Lake <br />Minnetonka. The City finds that the lagoon that the property <br />abuts is considered a part of Lake Minnetonka and that the <br />applicants* pre-existing rear yard was very visible from the <br />lagoon area under normal lake elevation conditions and that the <br />pool, proposed decking, and proposed 2—3* high retaining wall 15— <br />20* from the normal shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be very <br />visible encroachments into the required lakeshore setback area. <br />F) The granting of the required variances would be contrary to <br />the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.08, <br />Subdivision 3 (A) with which the applicants must first comply in <br />order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: <br />1) The essential character of the neighborhood will be <br />altered if the proposed variances are granted and the new <br />hardcover and structures in the 0-75* zone are allowed to <br />remain. <br />2) The property in question can indeed be put to reasonable <br />use if used under conditions allowed^ by official controls. <br />The property contains a single family residence and the <br />lakeshore 0-75* zone has been and can continue to be used as <br />yard area in support of that residence. <br />3) The plight of the applicants would appear to have been <br />created totally by the applicants and not by circumstances <br />unique to their property nor out of the applicants* control. <br />Page 5 of 8