Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />February 6, 2007 <br /> <br />values that would positively impact Centerville's bottom line. He pointed out a <br />significant amount of the proceeds from Lot 6 would be used to subsidize the neighbor's <br />assessments for Old Mill Road utility and road improvements. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal discussed the property value concerns by providing photos and diagrams of <br />the property. He compared setback elements of Lot 6 to those of the Deer Pass and Eagle <br />Pass developments. He indicated surrounding property values would be protected by <br />covenants and the fact that Lot 6 had the potential to support a 3350 square foot home, <br />which is at the upper range of homes in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal addressed safety concerns stating the driveway redesign would accommodate <br />a larger green space where children could play. He stated the driveway would provide <br />two parking spaces that would not encroach on the Right of Way. Mr. Hanzal displayed <br />a line-of-site diagram and photos of the curved road to depict how safety was a prime <br />concern. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal what the setback was at Deer Pass. Mr. Hanzal <br />replied it was at least 34 feet from the curb. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal explained how approving the variance would comply with the five criteria <br />outlined in Minnesota Statutes and City Code 154: <br /> <br />1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions <br />of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as <br />distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly <br />enforced <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal stated the bend in Clearwater Creek renders the lot unusable for reasonable <br />residential use without a variance. Mr. Hanzal reported the variance would relieve the <br />undue hardship and support residential development in a similar manner to others <br />commonly enjoyed in R-2 districts. <br /> <br />2) The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to <br />increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct <br />extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other <br />property in the vicinity or zoning district. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal indicated the majority of the surrounding areas are not subject to watershed <br />or wetland restrictions. The variance would correct those uncommon extraordinary <br />circumstances. Such variations have occurred and were approved in other developments <br />where similar circumstances are found. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed variance is not exclusively based on income alone. The <br />variance is being requested because the characteristSics of the lot should be enjoyed by <br />potential owners. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 12 <br />