pf_03308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 Member Olson stated she preferred exterior rock face block matching as closely 3 to the existing wall color. Member Cunningham agreed. Chair Rhody said he 4 found no hardship for rock face block. 5 6 Member Mulder stated he was opposed to the variance based on hardship. 7 8 Member Mulder explained that such a variance in a residential area could not be 9 done. He suggested shutting down the system in the off-season or build the 10 second building, then tear down the first building. He felt there was no II demonstrated hardship. 12 13 Motion #1: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend 14 approval, based on findings as outlined in the project report of May 9, 2001, of 15 the variance from Section 10 16.l7C 1 a (Pennitted Water Oriented Accessory 16 Structures) and Section 1016.22Al (Non-Conformities) with hardships of 17 inability to shut down in summer; inability to build one building for irrigation and 18 return well within 250 s.f. building designed for R-l uses. There are no reasonable 19 alternatives. 20 21 Member Mulder said the hardship was created by the applicant and there are 22 alternatives by building a separate building. It is not necessary to have wellheads 23 in the same building. 24 25 Member Wilke found that "hardship" is difficult to define; being practical this is a 26 good proposal. Member Mulder said if there is no hardship, no variance is 27 allowed. 28 29 30 Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke 31 Nays: Mulder 32 Motion carried 4-1. 33 34 Motion #2: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Olson, to recommend 35 denial of the variance from Section 1010.02 (Exterior Finish). 36 37 Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke, Mulder 38 Nays: None 39 Motion carried 5-0. 40 41 6(d) Planning File 3225: Roseville Mobile Home Park request for a Planned 42 Unit Development to rezone from R-2 and General Retail to High Density 43 Residential to enable improvements at 2599 Lexington A venue. 44 Page 7 of II