2007-03-14 Set Agenda & Handouts

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 14,2007 Dear Council Members: Please consider the following comments when you are evaluating the request for variance. What was the City of Centerville's intent when it created the setback requirements currently in the ordinance? Why would the City of Centerville be inclined to grant a variance, when Rice Creek Watershed would deny such a request? . The property owner has not approached the Rice Creek Watershed to request a variance. The property owner himself admitted the Rice Creek Watershed would likely deny such a request. Does the City want to get into a position of having to bear the weight with making exceptions to the setback ordinance? The P&Z Commission found the proposed variance was not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the lot, without clearly identifying what else the request was based upon (?). During one of the meetings, Mr. Hanzal himself could not deny he would have a financial gain on this property. Reasonable Use: The Hanzal's do have other options, one being he could subdivide the property into five lots to the North and then dedicate proposed lot 6 for reasonable use, such as a holding pond and access to the creek. This would allow for the Hanzal's to get their 5 lots, as they have stated a financial need for 5 lots. Is it the City of Centerville's intent to create non-conforming lots? . This is a non-conforming lot; while it meets the dimensions of a R2 lot, it is non-conforming, not because of its dimensions, but because it does not meet the set-back requirements of the ordinance. The property owner was aware of the setback ordinance: he not only lived in the City of Centerville at the time of the purchase of the property, he's a general contractor, and he also served on the P&Z Committee for 2 years - he was well aware of what would be required.