11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

44. No additional conditions are required with the granting of this variance since experts at Hennepin County and Hennepin County District Court have found that this use is allowed, reasonable and necessary to preserve a substantial property right. 45. Although the existing fence is clearly entitled to its existence by variance under City Coje and the test of undue hardship as routinely applied by the City, Applicant i.as agreed to relocate subject fence to the City -placed lath line in an effort to cooperate with the City's wishes under benefit of a variance. 46. To force removal of the fence or relocation closer to the Lake than provided by the Court Agreement would constitute an unc^nstitutional taking of Applicant's property s'Ince any portion of subject property between the CSAH 15 and the fence is worthless to the Applicants and serves only to enlarge CSAH 15 clearly benefiting c•;ly the public. AbsP^11 a fence, the public abuse the property, and City has repeatedly failed to protect Applicants. City Administrator concurs that fence provides a "definition of property." 47. In staff's memo to Council, a 12 point recital of findings was noted on the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of variance. Applicant disputes this portion of staff memo. Motion* was made to recommend denial since variance request "did not meet 'che Code." Poicts 1 to 12 are staff's not Planning Commission's. Applicant formally requested specific findings of fact in Planning Commission's motion and action. They were not part of motion or vote. Some of them are not fact. 48. The "General" Section of Court Settlement agreement requires Hennepin County, not Applicant, to obtain City's approval for new construction. City has allowed County to act. without required approval even after Applicant advised City Zoning and Public Works Administrators. 49. City has approved only 2 traveled lanes and an 8 foot shoulder .vr CSAH 15. CSAH 15 is wider than this on portions of subject property. City staff has been aware of this and has not acted. 50. Fence height is necessary since the height and widtk v, �.�AH 15 gave been consistently and repeatedly increased and enlarged. 'ity has taken no action to stop these ac_:ts.