My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-02-02 P & Z Packet
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
1994-2022
>
2021
>
2021-02-02 P & Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2021 5:10:52 PM
Creation date
1/29/2021 5:10:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />September 1, 2020 <br /> <br />and the homes on either side of this lot are set back approximately 32.5-33 feet. <br />Mr. Statz presented a copy of an email from City Attorney Kurt Glaser that included Minn.Stat.462.357, subd. <br />6(2), which defines variances and when they should be permitted. Discussion was had as to whether or not this <br />instance met the conditions, with particular focus on th <br />was taken from each commissioner as to whether or not they would support a variance to the lake setback instead <br />of the front setback. Mr. Statz recommended that if the resident wanted to move forward with the application, it <br />should request a variance in either the front or the back, to allow for potential changes in ideas or opinions. <br />rd <br />2. Street <br /> <br />City Administrator Statz explained that the homeowner would like a variance to side and rear setback <br />requirements for the construction for a new shed. He shared a picture of an aerial view of the yard, showing an <br />existing slab in the rear of the property that used to be used for a dog kennel. The location of the slab does not <br />meet the setbacks for a shed, but rather than poor new concrete, the resident would like to use the existing slab. <br /> <br />The Commission did not grant the variance because it did not meet the requirement of <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />The homeowner would like to build a shed in an area of his yard that does not meet the required setbacks, however <br />placing the shed in an area that meets city ordinances could impede drainage patterns. He stated that when he <br />installed his swimming pool, he had to regrade the whole backyard, and if he placed the shed further back he <br />would block the water flow. <br /> <br />City Administrator Statz shared a plat map of the lot, and discussion was had regarding where the homeowner <br />might place the shed to avoid blocking water flow. It was also suggested that he could place the shed on green- <br />treated wood. Members of the commission gave opinions on whether they felt the homeowner should go forward <br />with the application. All commissioners agreed that the homeowner needs to abide by required setbacks and <br />possibly put the shed on blocks or install draintile if he was concerned about impeding water flow. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />City Administrator Statz stated that an individual had contacted him regarding a piece of land for sale downtown <br />in an M2 district on Centerville Road. The property currently has a 400 square foot building that cannot be rebuilt <br />as a single family home under current city codes. Zoning codes for an M2 district require a minimum density of <br />12 units per acre. This lot is a 1/3 acre lot and could have up to 4 units according to code. It is also a middle lot <br />that sits north of Heritage Street on the east side of Centerville Road, and only has access to Centerville Road. <br />City codes state that all driveways must come off side streets. The possibility was discussed of building three row <br />house-style units while allowing a temporary driveway off Centerville Road. In the future, a driveway could be <br />built accessing Heritage Street, and then build a fourth unit where the current driveway sits. <br /> <br />The commission discussed how this might fit into the neighborhood, because it would be developed as a Planned <br />Unit Development (PUD) and therefore would not have any setback requirements. Commissioner Fehrenbacher <br />asked if building only three units would fit the code requirement. City Administrator Statz explained that in order <br />to meet the code four units would be required, but a PUD allowed for flexibility under all aspects of the code, and <br />the city could ask for certain amenities in exchange for a loosening of the standards such as improved architecture <br />or streetscaping. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.