Laserfiche WebLink
l <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />g <br />9 <br />10 <br />�� <br />12 <br />13 <br />19 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />ig <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />Member Olson stated she preferred e�terior rock face block matching as closely <br />to the existing wall color. Member Cunningham agreed. Chair Rhody said he <br />found no hardship for rock face block. <br />Member Mulder stated he was opposed to the variance based on hardship. <br />Member Mulder explained that such a variance in a residential area could not be <br />done. He suggested shutting down the system in the off-season or build the <br />second building, then tear down the first building. He felt there was no <br />demonstrated hardship. <br />�Iotion #1: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />approval, based on findings as outlined in the project report of May 9,200 1, of <br />the variance from Section 1016.17C1a (Permitted Water Oriented Accessory <br />Structures) and Section lO1G.22A1 (Non-Conformities) with hardships of <br />inability to shut down in summer; inability to build one building for irrigation and <br />return well within 250 s.f. building designed for R-1 uses. There are no reasonable <br />alternatives. <br />Member Mulder said the hardship was created by the applicant and there are <br />alternatives by building a separate building. It is not necessary to have wellheads <br />in the same building. <br />25 Member Wilke found that "hardship" is difficult to define; being practical this is a <br />2s good proposaL Member Mulder said if there is no hardship, no variance is <br />2 � allowed. <br />2s <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke <br />Nays: Mulder <br />Motion carried 4- 1. <br />�Iotion #2: Member Rhody moved, second by Member Olson, to recommend <br />denial of the variance from Section 1010.02 (E�terior Finish). <br />Ayes: Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Wilke, Mulder <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried 5-0. <br />6(d) Planning File 3225: Roseville Mobile Home Park request for a Planned <br />Unit Development to rezone from R-2 and General Retail to High Density <br />Residential to enable improvements at 2599 Le�ngton Avenue. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />