My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03093
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3000
>
pf_03093
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:33:41 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:03:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3093
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1240 BELAIR CR
Applicant
CARLSON, JAN
PIN
032923130014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.