Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#19 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 12, 1988 <br /> <br />compliance and that a fine should be issued. Larson further <br />commented that he has been deceived and wasn't told his legal <br />rights in this matter. <br /> <br />Rekuski stated that in August, he had shown Mr. Larson his plans <br />and a model of what was being proposed so that what was built was <br />no surprise to Mr. Larson. Larson replied that the plans were <br />not finalized until September or October so he couldn't have seen <br />a plan in August and that Mr. Rekuski showed him around and never <br />actually showed him a plan. <br /> <br />Maribelle Farr, 1261 Josephine Road, stated that they had gone <br />through the city building process when they built their house and <br />questioned why that process was not followed in this particular <br />case. <br /> <br />Florence Ellenwood, 1251 Josephine Road, questioned issuing a <br />variance after the fact and stated that it appeared that a person <br />could get around the laws by building around an old house so that <br />its grand fathered in. <br /> <br />Rekuski stated that standards which are in the ordinance don't <br />always work. Because of the small lot sizes in the area, houses <br />couldn't comply with the 75 foot setback laws. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the system only works because people abide by <br />the codes. Johnson testified that the applicant can't plead <br />innocent because he's in the business and knows the rules. <br />Johnson said that the city is somewhat to blame but the City <br />can't babysit all sites and that property owners should assume <br />responsibility. Johnson stated that she would support denial of <br />the variance and action to bring the dwelling into compliance. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he was appalled at the development at this <br />end of Lake Josephine because views of the lake are being <br />blocked. Goedeke stated that he agrees with denying the <br />variance. <br /> <br />Stokes <br />opinions <br />suspend <br />Attorney <br /> <br />stated his concern that there are two conflicting <br />in this case, and that the appropriate action may be to <br />this process and turn the matter over to the City <br />to determine what the City's legal options are. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that he would not want to support an action <br />which would result in financial damage to persons. DeBenedet <br />pointed out that the City is not obligated to provide daily <br />supervision of construction only to provide specific types of <br />