Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Wednesday, August 1, 1990 <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned whether the .7 foot side lot setback was a <br />concern. Shard I ow stated that since they are in violation it was <br />a concern, but because it encroaches upon park land it is not as <br />much a concern. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned what the side lot setback is. Maynard stated <br />that it is fifteen feet. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the intent of the shoreline setback was to <br />protect the lake and the aquatic vegetation. She stated that she <br />was not satisfied with last months explanations and is not happy <br />with this situation overall, although recognizing that it was an <br />honest mistake. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that the shoreline ordinance was set up for a <br />rural landscape, one with septic tanks. wietecki stated that the <br />intent was to ensure there was enough land for the septic tanks <br />so that they did not pollute the water. wietecki stated that now <br />with city sewer, higher densities may be permitted. <br /> <br />Wietecki questioned what the city's options were. Shardlow <br />stated that the building is in violation of the setback <br />ordinance. In order to bring it to accordance the city would <br />have to order the wall torn down which would likely end up as a <br />lengthy court battle. Shardlow stated that one must take into <br />consideration the hardships involved with the level of violation. <br /> <br />wietecki questioned whether the city can put conditions on the <br />variance. Shardlow stated conditions placed on a variance must <br />have a direct relationship to the variance being requested. <br />wietecki commented that city should sell the developers .7 feet <br />of the park at a high price as penalty for the encroachment. <br /> <br />The Public Hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Berry testified that the shoreline ordinance was enacted to <br />protect the integrity of the lakes. This is why the Commission <br />is making a big fuss over this encroachment. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that the variance should be approved because the <br />line is so difficult to locate. wietecki added that this reason <br />should be part of the variance. Berry stated that she is open to <br />that suggestion but it would be hard to do legally. <br /> <br />Johnson indicated that as part of the approval, a statement <br />should be attached that states that the Commission is very upset <br />that this happened and that in no way is this a precedent for <br />approval of encroachments. Johnson stated that the minutes will <br />reflect the Commissions displeasure of this situation. <br />