11-25-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of 0110NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Eerh separate parcel must individually conform :4_o the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. The property is divic;ed by r 11,�nnepin County road e:iseincr,t. The lakeshore portion of the property cannot satisfy the LR- lA zoning dirtrict standards and could not sustain a principal struc- .re. 4. The five foo,.. high fence has been placed at the inter- section of a public lake accer,s and a County road. The access is used during the winter months from Deceml, r 1st th:rourlh March 1st. 5. The five fc A high fence placer; 20 feet from the center- line of the County road running approximately 200 fee along the edtn of the 40 foot -pad easement creates a .erious sighting problem and endan, rs users cf use the access and the Courity road. 6. Properties like the appiicant's, applicant's -.eighbors or the many lakeshore properties along County Road 15, 19 or Crystal Bay Road are unique and would require special con- sideration through a variance review or proposed zoning amendment. 7. The applicant claims he is limited in the use of his residential lakeshore property because of the loca�ion of the public access and the adjacent commercial properties. These uses exist today as they did when the applicant purchased the property. H. The City has agreed to construct a fence consisting of posts with a guard rail along the south side of the public access in order to deter the trespassers from the public access. 9. The applicant claims that. a five foot high privacy fence is required at the present location to provide much needed privacy for him and his family. The City starf has asked the applicant, to consider the use of a cabanna within his dock area but applicant has refused this approach to solvinq p: i --racy needs. pa qf. 3 r', 1