Laserfiche WebLink
. ' . .� _ <br /> ,�-'��"��z.����.� . . <br /> .�''i'°� h�Jj�h'ri'+� � ' <br /> r�.°�����r�,�r� �'�AY:�'��1� �l� O� O� �x:� ' �,. g �ri: :r, � � <br /> �� t�k���1A �4� � �� � � 4• a t) � �.,���9 an���.� �s;r�. <br /> �.t'���'.�'� �"4'v�5�'}�� 4� �i�li?�Ryy� � i s 4c::r �'V�!•.�V51 T+,•,i t �ii' <br /> �piE'��y`,�t�i`.�-�.,ki�'? � . . � �..C4.;fi �M�;i�,;k. �s`y�f:�.�,7i� <br /> �" , ,K=,t� � `' ���N v ��Fz r,^.., <br /> �f���'���,��y�r,�j�x7'�,� RESOLUTION OF THE CIT n�t�U�VC�C°�'��(4'.,�,�7�ry; � `'` <br /> t'�{.*yaj��`q� ��� +.�1''�ah� ` �,`i'w�l�9L��s�:j? r f�"�(ii`a��l� <br /> �4tt����t4.�c""'�7j�YS4��'` t�,fx' , .N�. 1 /6 0 �.. 7 1��f6'i.-':�r:l'r � <br /> E'��"d`fif�7��� :�;�'^�,a� , <br /> t 4a1�trA�6�.,=..r,:rfi{��::n,��,'fl • <br /> j ���• <br /> . Y7'ti('��u°��� �.*rr 1E� <br /> �.�,��i(t r.�:�-�I� <br /> � S <br /> 2. Condition 4 .of Resolution #1341 stated in part that "AI.l � <br /> , proposed structures and additional improvements must meet� , <br /> the . 75' setback from the lakeshore." j <br /> � <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� hardcover and no improvements in the 0-75' � <br /> lakeshore setback zone. <br /> . i . <br /> 4. Appiicant has not� demonstrated that a substantial hard- : <br /> ship exists. . • • <br /> � <br /> 5. Construction of an 8 ' fence as proposed would be detri- � <br /> mental to the neighborhood and would decrease the lake views � <br /> : for the neighboring residences on Eastlake Street. � , <br /> 6. The granting of the required variances would result in � <br /> � the 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) In 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. 4 <br /> 3 <br /> ., <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. s� � <br /> . i <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 hardship or difficulty. � <br /> � 7. The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary � <br /> to any of the above findings of fact. � . <br /> • � 9 <br /> . Page 2 of 4 <br /> . � <br /> . . . , <br /> . , <br />