Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Levesque garage variance continued to Oct. 23 after applicant submits revised site plan
Summary
A Levesque garage variance that was tentatively denied in August was continued to Oct. 23 so staff can review a scaled, redesigned site plan the applicant submitted; the revised plan pulls the structure farther from an intermittent stream but staff said more documentation is needed before a decision.
The Placer County Zoning Administrator on Sept. 18 continued the Levesque garage setback variance (PLN25-00009) to Oct. 23 after the applicant submitted a revised site plan that moves the proposed garage farther from a nearby intermittent stream.
Background: At the Aug. 14 hearing the zoning administrator took tentative action to deny the variance because staff could not find the proposed location — then 8 feet from the stream centerline where a 50-foot setback is required — was the minimum necessary departure from the code. The item generated significant public comment opposing the earlier design, including concerns about a poured slab on the property, tree removal and potential impacts to the stream bank.
New submission and staff review: The applicant’s attorney, Marcus Laduca, submitted a revised plan showing the garage relocated roughly 33–35 feet from the stream centerline and provided draft findings for the amended proposal. Staff said the revision reduced but did not eliminate the need for variances (the structure would still require relief from the stream setback and an eastern property-line setback). Staff told the hearing the materials submitted by the applicant were not sufficiently scaled for county review and that staff needed a scalable site plan to confirm the proposal meets other setback and development standards.
Action taken: The zoning administrator continued the matter off calendar and set a new hearing date of Oct. 23, directing staff to work with the applicant to submit a scalable plan, to renotice the item as necessary and to provide the public with the revised materials prior to the October hearing.
Why it matters: The item involves potential encroachment into an intermittent stream setback and drew broad neighborhood concern; staff and neighbors emphasized that adequate, scaled plans and environmental considerations are needed before the zoning administrator can make the required findings to approve a variance.
