11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a. A fence in excess of 42" has existed on this site for 20-30 years approximatel*ithe City -planed "lath line". 31i. The variance request is minimal, 18 inches, less than that reiative to the crown of CSAH 15. 36. The variance request would generally conform to the amendment to Code Section 10.220 Al proposed and supported by City staff. 37. There exists on each and every property adjacent to subject property at least one and in some cases many violations of the Code. They exist without benefit of variance and are not entitled to "grandfathering". None of these have bee., aci.ed upon by the City. 38. A fence at the current or proposed location does not does deny any resident of a vista, only , view of Applicants'lakeshore activities, i.e. privacy. For a dis!..nce of + 200 feet the general public is denied a view of Applicant's lakeshore on a lesser basis than the denial of view provided by a house and associated structures on a pro- perty not intersected by any road, let alone a major thoroughfare. 39. The property in q!jestion has demonstrably been shown to be unable, to be put to reasonable use under conditions clearly allowed by current interpretation of official controls. 40. The plight of the Applicant is the result of actions and the lack of action by Hennepin County and the City. The Applicant's plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land owner. 41. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality since: A. It adjoins a commercial property which is non -conforming as to fences. 3. A non -conforming commercial use which was existing prior to Code changes but which is in violation of its conditional use permit. City is aware of violations but they continue. C. It adjoins a residential property in violation of the same Zoning Code Section and others. U. Subject property provides more open space than any other nearby property. E. Uses of adjacent commercial property and the Lake Access have changed and intensified from the time Applicants purchased pro- perty due to actions and inactions by the City. 42. Economic considerations alone do not constitute the undue hardship in this case. No reasonable use of this property exists under the Code without variances as requested in this application. 4.3. The use is clearly consistent with the Zoning Code and is not a use which is not permitted under Chapter 10 of the Code for this property.