Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chair Harms closed the hearing and noted she has a hard time understanding <br />the physical hardship for the setback. <br /> <br />Member Olson suggested a possible redesign or movement to the north. <br /> <br />Member Rhody explained this was a good plan. <br /> <br />Mo1tiOJIll: Member Rhody moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />approval of variances to reduce the rear setback (by 3 feet to 27 feet) and <br />increase the irr:pervious surface coverage of a parcel in a shoreland management <br />district to 35% for the purpose of regrading the site and constructing a single <br />family residence on a pre-existing undeveloped parcel at 1240 Belair Circle, <br />based on the findings in the January 13, 1999 staff report, and with the following <br />provisions: <br /> <br />1. On-site grading must be verified in the field to insure that drainage is not <br />diverted to adjacent properties. <br /> <br />2. Prior to site grading, and before any utility construction is commenced <br />or building permits are issued, an erosion control plan must be <br />submitted for approval and all erosion control actions shall be <br />implemented and inspected. <br /> <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the definition ofphvsical hardship and the <br />means of varying setbacks. <br /> <br />Member Klausing asked ifthere was a precedent being set in this case. Member <br />Rhody explained no precedent is being set. Member Mulder explained that <br />other designs could be utilized on this site. If this is an original design, it should <br />be designed to meet the setback. There is no physical hardship. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked that the applicant be given an opportunity to redesign the <br />structure. <br /> <br />Chair Harms said she could not support the application. <br /> <br />On a roll call vote: <br />Ayes: Klausing, Wilke, Rhody <br />Nays: Cunningham, Mulder, Olson, Harms <br />Motion failed 4-3. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham said the design could be altered to meet the design. <br />Member Olson agreed. Chair Harms and Member Mulder said they were not <br />opposed to impervious surface variance (a general consensus among members). <br /> <br />- <br />