Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 6/27/1988

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ed Henrich May 10, 1988 Page Two We have also reviewed the applications for variances and the LR-1C zoning district. Although this district has slightly different conditions and requirements than the LR-1B district, I feel these lots are significant in that these properties are also lakesho re properties on Lake Minnetonka, with the same type of problems, and with similar rationales for the zoning restrictions. I note in reviewing these applications that again the existence of sewer and water seems to be the key element in the decisions. Indeed, of all the cases we looked at, only the Belden-Meline lot (number 2014) was denied a variance when a sewer hook-up existed. That particular case seems to be quite unique, in that the total size of the lot was only 5,000 square feet, and that variances would be necessary for •virtually all set -backs -- front, back, side and lakeshore. In addition, the applicant in that case was not a long-time owner of the property, but rather a person who had purchased the property with full knowledge of the existing building restrictions. The City apparently was of the opinion that the circumstances were so extraordinary that even with the existence of sewer and water, this lot could not reasonably be built on, nor could the applicant otherwise meet the requirements for variance. In addition to the strong history of the previol,� valiance approval on similar lots, a second factor needs to be pointed out. The request to build on your lot is totally consistent with the other properties along Highwood Road. Virtually none of the lcts in this neighborhood conform to the present zoning ordinances. They are all substandard with regard to size, set- backs, and many instances with regard to hardcover. Although there is a defineable average set -back, even in that regard the neighborhood provides some uniqu,� circumstances. An example of this is the parcel immediately adjacent to the east where the house has an extreme set -back from the lake and most probably does not come close to meeting the road set -back requirements. A third element we reviewed was the recent court interpretations of zoning laws. Of jarticular interest was the court case dealing with restrictions in Los Angeles County, California. Along with the outline of previous variance requests, a brief synopsis of this case is included in the attached memo. You may wish to review this, but in summary it appears that the City, having established a pattern of variances in similar situations in the past, could strictly enforce zoning rules against you only if it compensate' t u for the taking of your property, i.e. denying you any use :,ich was permitted to others. That compensation would be payable even if such restrictions were only temporary in nature. The final item touched on in the attached memo is a synopsis of -he factual background surrounding your property. It is my