Laserfiche WebLink
�'�s���f�'t <br /> i <br /> a`�?"t�s,.�` .�x, //��� <br /> �P ����'��'�����'M1 af'��i ' t/��� O� O� ��� f�,a ��: tj .. <br /> �f r tia �7 ti r' f7 <br /> 7'll�'.Y� ,� '�� . 'aT :{ :F �� I:u � I(il. �'y � <br /> �jY�.'�'� �-n��3- {�'�: c ' �i`if�.f.t`� i' �)��a'S �i�.l•:Qqz° ���?'..•clr" - <br /> fS .�, {n��� L ,,, <br /> ����.¢ ���'" ,4S �t � b•�.. :�fi �s��kk;. i�; .: 4:y. <br /> � � � � t ' r�� � ' �.��( �,�t��� . <br /> �����.��';��� . � RESOLUTION OF THE ClT1�ri���U�1fC��n�':. ��ty��;.� `'��='`i' <br /> �1 � ��F.� • �w�:�;7c� ; � �;�, r <br /> �� ;�>..�,;;;'^��Y � � `�� � �' •r�� f <br /> r:�� '; �,���ti�� NO. 17 6 8 ������.:��:- . <br /> , � <br /> ;���;,������;;y���.� <br /> � �u� � <br /> �Aj�,. � ,� � � ' <br /> 4} T <br /> ''��A��� ��� <br /> . ��.lt�i � �. . <br /> ...Z1 4'�:4i<�31�'4� <br /> 34..,..fy�3�I:5r . <br /> 2. Condition 4 .of Resolution #1341 stated in part that "All <br /> , proposed structures and additional improvements must meet <br /> the . 75' setback from the lakeshore." . <br /> � 3. The concrete patios are considered structures and were <br /> installed without a permit being issued in violation of the <br /> lak�eshore setback and hardcover zoning code requirements, <br /> which allow 0$ hardc�over and no improvements in the 0-75' � <br /> lakeshore setback zone. <br /> 4. Applicant has not� demonstrated that a substantial hard- <br /> ship exists. . � <br /> 5. Construction of an 8 ' fence as proposed would be detri- <br /> mental to the neighborhood and would decrease the Iake views <br /> • for the neighboring residences on Eastlake Street. ' <br /> 6. The granting of the required variances would result in <br /> � t-he following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) <br /> � of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first <br /> comply before the requested variances can be granted: � <br /> a) I� review of the factual findings noted above, the <br /> ' plight of this applicant was created by his own actions . <br /> � and has nothing to do with a unique hardship related to <br /> the land. <br /> . b) There are no special conditions applying to the <br /> . � • land in question which are peculiar to the land� or <br /> � immediately adjoining property. � <br /> � • c) The granting of ,the application is not necessary � <br /> for the preservatiori and enjoyment of a substantial <br /> property right of the applicant. ' <br /> d) The granting of the variances would be contrary to <br /> � the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. � <br /> e) The granting of the variances will serve mainly as <br /> a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to <br /> ' alleviate demonstrable liardship or difficulty. <br /> � 7. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary <br /> to any of the above findings of fact. � . � <br /> � Page 2 of 4 <br />