Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />February 6, 2007 <br /> <br />Mrs. Krueger addressed the Commission again and displayed photos of what the <br />neighbors would be looking at. She pointed out how close the houses are to the street at <br />30 feet and at 50 feet. She mentioned the homes are not all set back at the same footage. <br /> <br />Mrs. Essex stated everyone in the development had a two car garage, two cars and room <br />for storage. She stated the future owners of Lot 6 would not have enough room for more <br />than two cars and no extra storage space. She stated extensive flooding did occur in this <br />area on many occasions during the year. She emphasized the area could not be used <br />during the summer because of the mosquitoes and bugs. She indicated safety is a large <br />issue for her. She reported that when they built their home, they had to comply with the <br />current conditions and did not get a variance. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the Commission would consider the five criteria for <br />approving a variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pangell stated the Commission had already recommended the change to <br />an R-2 zoning designation to the Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Plow, Sr. stated the Rice Creek Watershed District had not given their final approval <br />of the development plan, but he expected it soon. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Pangell, seconded by Commissioner Love, to close the <br />public hearing on the request for variance at 7:50 p.m. All in favor. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the first criterion to be met is: Because of the particular <br />physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the <br />proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere <br />inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love reiterated the most important issue to determine is if an undue <br />hardship exists. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed and stated he was unsure if the fact that Mr. Hanzal <br />did not know of the hardship qualified as meeting the criteria for an undue hardship. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love asked if there were records indicating the City Council designated <br />the property as not developable. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilharber replied it should be in the early records. <br /> <br />City Administrator Larson stated the City would have commented on the portion that was <br />not buildable-the remnant portion left over after development of the land across the street, <br />but that it did not affect the rest of the lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Love stated he did not look at it as a whole. <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />