pm_010509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Cunningham agreed. Chair Rhody said he found no hardship for rock face block. Member Mulder stated he was opposed to the variance based on hardship. Member Mulder explained that such a variance in a residential area could not be done. He suggested shutting down the system in the off-season or build the second building, then tear down the first building. He felt there was no demonstrated hardship. Motion #1: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend approval, based on findings as outlined in the project report of May 9, 2001, of the variance from Section 1 016.17C1 a (Permitted Water Oriented Accessory Structures) and Section 1 016.22A 1 (Non-Conformities) with hardships of inability to shut down in summer; inability to build one building for irrigation and return well within 250 s.t. building designed for R-1 uses. There are no reasonable alternatives. Member Mulder said the hardship was created by the applicant and there are alternatives by building a separate building. It is not necessary to have wellheads in the same building. Member Wilke found that "hardship" is difficult to define; being practical this is a good proposal. Member Mulder said if there is no hardship, no variance is allowed. Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke Nays: Mulder Motion carried 4-1. Motion #2: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Olson, to recommend denial of the variance from Section 1010.02 (Exterior Finish). Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke, Mulder Nays: None Motion carried 5-0. 6(f) Planning File 3225: Roseville Mobile Home Park request for a Planned Unit Development to rezone from R-2 and General Retail to High Density Residential to enable improvements at 2599 Lexington Avenue. Chair Rhody opened the hearing and requested Community Development Director, Dennis Welsch, to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated May 9, 2001. Larry Salera, representing Roseville Estates LLC, stated they are excited about the new proposals, and would like the opportunity to improve the parking and landscaping. Member Cunningham asked about moving units. Larry Salera stated no units would be lost. Member Wilke asked if the RVs are owned by the residents in the Park; (it may be outside owners). Could the RVs be eliminated? (Yes, if more manufactured housing was possible). Member Cunningham asked how many RVs are in the Park at this time (None). Member Rhody asked if the owners have met with the residents; this planning process requires inclusion of the residents. Member Rhody encouraged resident meetings with the owners (no formal meeting has been held to date). Member Cunningham asked if RVs have no place in the future? What could go on the site in the future? (4 manufactured housing sites). Helen Griffin, resident, noted that the children are located in the center of the site; the plan should locate the playground in that area.