08-22-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1303 Page 2 of 3 removed approximately 40' of fencing. Staff requested that Mr. Fisher give the Rezabeks the section of fencing removed until this matter was resolved. It is staffs understanding that the Fishers are opposed to the relocating of the subject fencing within Mr. Rezabeks lot lines. In early discussions with Mr. Fisher, ,;hen Mr. Fisher assumed that the fencing was located within his lot line, there was discussion about the installation of the new fencing and staff advised that variances would be required. Unfortunately Mr. Rezabek was nor aware that to relocate the 6' high privacy fence required variance approval also. Once again, please review Exhibit I. Note that 20' of the disputed section of fencing is located out. of the 75' setback area and can be relocated within Rezabeks side lot line. 40' is located within the lakeshore protected area, requiring the necessary setback variances. As Mr. Rezabek advised, 13' has already been reinstalled within his property lines. The applicant does not plan to install a new fence, he seeks only permission to reinstall the fencing that had existed on what he thought was within his property when he purchased his home. Review Exhibit E. Applicant's attorney has already stated that the judicial determinations of the torrence action made no claim as to the ownership of the existing improvements that encroach the subject lot line, but it clearly would appear from an observation: of the property that the fencing was installed by the person who installed all of the fencing on the north and south lot lines of the Rezabek property. Once again, the application irvolves the relocation of 40' of fencing within the southeast yard of the Rezabek property located approximately 35' from the east shore line of Lake Minnetonka. Suggested Issues for Consideration 1. Are the circumstsrces surrounding the structure unique to this property or common throughout the City? 2. Does t..e location of the 40' of continuous privacy fencit.g create a hazard or present a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare? 3. Has the applicant created the hardship within this case? Will approval of this variance be considered merely a convenience fur the applicant? How similar is this application to the applications filed as a result o" storm damage? 4. Does the fact that we are dealing with an existing fence and not installation of new fencinq have any bearing on -,�hese considerations? Alternatives of Action and Necessary Findings A. To deny the lakeshore setback variance ap i.cation of the applicants based on following findings: 1. Applicant has not demonstrated suff-�-_:,-nt hardships to warrant approval of the setback variance. 2. Negative precedent would be establi� -d in the review of future applications dealing with requests for St:-L,':ures within the lakeshore r,rotE meted area.