My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-08-05 P & Z - Approved
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2008
>
2008-08-05 P & Z - Approved
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/31/2008 12:21:16 PM
Creation date
10/31/2008 12:21:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />August 5, 2008 <br />City Administrator Larson stated that they would conform to Rice Creek's so there is no <br />confusion. <br />Commissioner Wood stated that they should put a footnote in the Zoning Code that <br />references that. <br />Councilmember Broussard-Vickers stated that she would not want to tell someone 50 feet, <br />and then Rice Creek changes its requirement to 100 feet. <br />The Commission agreed that they should follow whichever restriction is more restrictive. <br />d. 154.171 -Tree Planting <br />City Administrator Larson discussed 154.171, Tree Planting, which is on page 54 of the <br />Zoning Code handout. He stated that they would rather not have boulevard trees in that 15 <br />feet area either, and they should have to be off of the right of way. He added that that <br />would eliminate conflicts with the utilities, and it would make them private trees. Fifteen <br />feet, in most cases, would put the trees on a property line or on private property. <br />e. Variance Language <br />City Administrator Larson discussed the Court decision regarding the County. He stated <br />they did not know for sure what the Court intended. It was the worse possible scenario, <br />regarding a lake lot, where no survey was required. The owner built the house and, after it <br />was built, it did not meet the setback requirements. The County made the owner apply for <br />the Variance. The Planning Commission did not see a problem with it. The Hearing said <br />they have to consider it as not apre-existing condition. The Justice needs an approval and <br />the issue of having to tear down house was a factor they could consider. In this case, the <br />County should use practical difficulty, rather than hardship. City Administrator Larson <br />stated that this will have to be discussed further. <br />City Administrator Larson stated that there are separate Statues separating States and <br />Counties. <br />f. Interim Use Permits <br />City Administrator Larson stated that Interim Use Permits have atime-specific threshold. <br />He stated that they have done some that were issued for a specific user. Then, when <br />someone else moved in, the new owner had to reapply. City Administrator Larson added <br />that they may need to add more to the District requirements later to identify the uses in <br />each District that might be considered for Interim Use Permits. <br />g. Mailboxes <br />City Administrator Larson stated that Mayor Capra requested that the Commission discuss <br />mailboxes. They have realized that they are not meeting the Ordinance. Mayor Capra <br />would like the Commission to decide whether or not it should still be necessary to cluster a <br />certain number of mailboxes on one post. <br />Page 7 of g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.