My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-09-11 Set Agenda & Handouts
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2013
>
2013-09-11 Set Agenda & Handouts
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2013 3:35:32 PM
Creation date
9/11/2013 3:35:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning & Zoning Commission Report and Recommendation. <br /> The Planning & Zoning Commission met on August 13, 2013, to <br /> consider a request of Lloyd Hanson, 1588 Sorel Street, for a variance to <br /> allow placement of an accessory building in a front yard. <br /> Findings: <br /> 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard and considered all <br /> testimony of interested persons submitted in writing and in person <br /> during the public hearing and input process. <br /> 2. City Code, Chapter 156, Sec. 156.107, (A), (3) provides that "no <br /> accessory structure shall be erected or located within any required <br /> yard except a rear yard." <br /> 3. The applicant's property is a lake frontage lot. <br /> 4. The property is subject to a 75 foot rear -yard setback due to lake <br /> frontage on Centerville Lake and the home is setback <br /> approximately the minimum leaving insufficient room in the rear <br /> yard for a garage /accessory building. <br /> 5. The front of the home orients toward Sorel Street. <br /> 6. A variance permitting an accessory building in the front yard, <br /> would still allow the accessory building to be set back a distance <br /> of the minimum front yard setback of 35 feet. <br /> 7. The use and building type is consistent with the requirements of <br /> the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 8. The applicant provided evidence that an accessory building could <br /> not be constructed without the variance. <br /> 9. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any <br /> persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Special <br /> circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or <br /> building involved and do not result from the actions of the <br /> petitioner. The Commission finds that the unique circumstances <br /> of the property justify a variance. <br /> 10. The Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated that <br /> the variance proposed is the minimum necessary to accomplish <br /> the permitted use. The Commission has identified conditions that <br /> will mitigate any adverse impact that granting the variance would <br /> have on adjoining properties and such are included in the <br /> recommendation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.