My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-03-14 CC
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2007
>
2007-03-14 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2009 12:49:42 PM
Creation date
3/9/2007 2:52:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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
<br />City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />March 6, 2007 <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated the new information on whether the property owner <br />purchased the problems is negated by the new rules. He indicated it is one big lot and by <br />subdividing, in his mind, it is a self created hardship. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pangell agreed it is one large parcel of land. He stated that if Rice Creek <br />would not change their standards for setbacks, why should the City of Centerville. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fehrenbacher reported he researched what other ordinances in past have <br />been similar. He believes this is an undue hardship in that he would have to tear his <br />home down to make the lot larger. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love stated since there is a home on the property already; it makes it <br />difficult to split up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klennert-Hunt stated this IS a legal lot and fits the requirements; the <br />question becomes is it a buildable lot. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glaser stated the water setbacks have not always been as deep as they are <br />now. He mentioned that when the streets were put in they might have been back to 50 <br />feet. He stated it is a balance between the City and owner to. be able to use the land <br />wisely. <br /> <br />Chair Hanson stated he looked at it and took it out of the setting. He said the creek is <br />what makes it unique. He mentioned Rice Creek Watershed District decided how close a <br />property owner could build to the Creek. Chair Hanson stated that if the Commission did <br />not grant a variance, it would be something to take a look at because precedence had been <br />set previously. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pangell asked what if the decision was wrong in the past; should the <br />Commission keep approving the variances because of precedence. He stated there is <br />uniform opposition to this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love responded the law sets the precedence unless the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission hears something strong enough to say it was wrong. <br /> <br />Commissioner Klennert-Hunt said the Commission must look at each situation <br />individually. She said the Commission needed the comments and feedbacks so it could <br />reach consensus and say it made the right decision no matter what it was. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pangell stated the court cases and the Planning and Zoning Code are two <br />different things. He stated the term precedence is judicial. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright reiterated his comment about a self created hardship by <br />subdividing a larger lot. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.