2007-04-03 P & Z - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission March 6, 2007 pointed out the surrounding home sizes range from 1,918 square feet to 3,386 square feet. Mr. Hanzal stated his proposed structure on Lot 6 would be either a 3,460 or 3,090 square foot structure and would fit within the neighboring developments. Mr. Hanzal displayed the new Lot 6 diagram, stating Outlot A would not be used. Mr. Hanzal confirmed, under Minnesota State Statute 462.357, an undue hardship means the property could not be put to reasonable use if strict interpretations of the ordinances were followed. He indicated the hardship is caused by circumstances unique to the property, such as the Rice Creek 100 foot drainage easement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements, and the City of Centerville requirements that impact the shape and buildable area of Lot 6. He stated the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality as the site and surrounding area are zoned for single-family residential use. Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed single-family home would be at the upper square footage relative to surrounding homes. Mr. Hanzal concluded the variance would relieve an undue hardship created by the properties natural and environmental issues. He pointed out the ten foot variance addresses more than practical difficulties; it allows a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Hanzal stated his attorney's findings indicate the proposed ten foot variance satisfied the undue hardship requirement of both the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes. Mr. Jon Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, pointed to the site map and talked about the Hanzal property. He said the property would not be divided into lots until the City Council approves the request; it is currently one large 4.6 acre lot. He stressed that creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6) would not meet the setback requirements. Mr. Krueger implied special conditions exist that are particular to the property. He indicated it ties into the State Statutes that say the actions of the landowner by the way it is subdivided creates a need for the variance on Lot 6. Mr. Krueger sited four court cases to justify his statements. He pointed out that creating a non-conforming lot (Lot 6) would set precedence. He stressed that most of the people in the neighborhood are against this and want to know why the Commission is trying to find ways to push this request through. Mr. Krueger stated this could be a PUD or rezoned and he would like to see a covenant for an R-5 home on the lot. City Attorney Kurt Glaser stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had the authority to go either way on this. He mentioned some of the court cases referenced by Mr. Krueger predate 1995. He explained the old rule was that when an individual purchase a property, they also bought the problems. He stated that when determining if undue hardship was created by the landowner, the statutes now address what warrants an undue hardship. City Attorney Glaser conveyed that Lot 6 is a unique situation because of the existing house on the property and the area to the south. He clarified there are two ways to look at this; one being to have five lots and a large area to the south because of the current wetland conditions. He said that secondly the southern lot that is landlocked by setbacks could be developed using the plan presented by the Mr. Hanzal. Page 2 of 10