2020-09-01 P & Z Minutes - Approved

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 2020 Mr. Statz presented a copy of an email from City Attorney Kurt Glaser that included Minn.Stat.462.357, subd. 6(2), which defines variances and when they should be permitted. Discussion was had as to whether or not this instance met the conditions, with particular focus on the phrase “practical difficulties”. A statement of opinion was taken from each commissioner as to whether or not they would support a variance to the lake setback instead of the front setback. Mr. Statz recommended that if the resident wanted to move forward with the application, it should request a variance in either the front or the back, to allow for potential changes in ideas or opinions. rd 2. Variance Concept Review – 1837 - 73 Street City Administrator Statz explained that the homeowner would like a variance to side and rear setback requirements for the construction for a new shed. He shared a picture of an aerial view of the yard, showing an existing slab in the rear of the property that used to be used for a dog kennel. The location of the slab does not meet the setbacks for a shed, but rather than poor new concrete, the resident would like to use the existing slab. The Commission did not grant the variance because it did not meet the requirement of a “practical difficulty” 3. Variance Concept Review – 1779 Partridge Place The homeowner would like to build a shed in an area of his yard that does not meet the required setbacks, however placing the shed in an area that meets city ordinances could impede drainage patterns. He stated that when he installed his swimming pool, he had to regrade the whole backyard, and if he placed the shed further back he would block the water flow. City Administrator Statz shared a plat map of the lot, and discussion was had regarding where the homeowner might place the shed to avoid blocking water flow. It was also suggested that he could place the shed on green- treated wood. Members of the commission gave opinions on whether they felt the homeowner should go forward with the application. All commissioners agreed that the homeowner needs to abide by required setbacks and possibly put the shed on blocks or install draintile if he was concerned about impeding water flow. 4. Concept Plan Review – 7064 Centerville Road City Administrator Statz stated that an individual had contacted him regarding a piece of land for sale downtown in an M2 district on Centerville Road. The property currently has a 400 square foot building that cannot be rebuilt as a single family home under current city codes. Zoning codes for an M2 district require a minimum density of 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 that sits north of Heritage Street on the east side of Centerville Road, and only has access to Centerville Road. City codes state that all driveways must come off side streets. The possibility was discussed of building three row house-style units while allowing a temporary driveway off Centerville Road. In the future, a driveway could be built accessing Heritage Street, and then build a fourth unit where the current driveway sits. The commission discussed how this might fit into the neighborhood, because it would be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and therefore would not have any setback requirements. Commissioner Fehrenbacher asked if building only three units would fit the code requirement. City Administrator Statz explained that in order to meet the code four units would be required, but a PUD allowed for flexibility under all aspects of the code, and the city could ask for certain amenities in exchange for a loosening of the standards such as improved architecture or streetscaping. City Administrator Statz explained that the inquiring individual had not purchased the property yet, and was only Page 2 of 6