My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-10-03 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2000
>
2000-10-03 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 3:01:43 PM
Creation date
12/14/2005 11:27:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />Chairperson Hanson questioned the status of the interior work. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the sheet rock <br />and insulation has been installed, but the finishing drywall has not been applied. <br /> <br />Mr. March stated that he feels the interior finish work meets the criteria required for a variance but that <br />enlarging the building does not. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson stated his opposition to granting a variance for expanding the building due to <br />setting a precedent for others to request variances for larger accessory buildings than allowed by <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Dave Radeck, 6960 Meadow Circle, appeared before the Commission and stated that he drives past the <br />property every day on the way to and from work and the pole building is an eyesore. <br /> <br />Mrs. Hasiak stated the pole barn is in better shape than the house is due to the crawlspace's foundation <br />collapsing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson made a point of order comment indicating issues relating to the civil dispute <br />between Mrs. Hasiak and the former property owner should be kept out of the discussion regarding the <br />variance request. <br /> <br />Mrs. Hasiak stated the house would not have been sold without the pole barn being there is no garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Palzer indicated the Hasiaks have the right to add an attached garage to the house. <br /> <br />Council Liasion Broussard Vickers questioned how long the building would be allowed to remain on the <br />property as a non-conforming structure. Mr. Palzer indicated under the old Ordinance #4 it was thirty <br />(30) years and under the new ordinance there is no timeframe. <br /> <br />Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Sheppard to <br />recommend to Council approval of the variance to allow for the interior chan~es provided the <br />proper buildin~ permits and inspections are obtained and to deny the variance request for <br />expansion of the non-conformin~ structure. Ayes - 5 Nays -1 (Brainard) Abstain -1 (McLean). <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />2. County Bank Variance Request <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson stated he would prefer not to grant the variance and that the sign ordinance needs to <br />be reviewed and amended. <br /> <br />Council Liasion Broussard Vickers stated she would prefer to revisit the sign ordinance in depth rather <br />than grant the variance. She also indicated she believed it was the general consensus of the Council that <br />County Bank's sign would fit within the parameters discussed, however, no final agreement on changes <br />to the sign ordinance were made. Therefore, there is no guarantee the sign proposed by County Bank <br />would conform to ordinance requirements. <br /> <br />Commission Member De Vine stated he would like to amend the sign ordinance to designate a special <br />district east of 20th Avenue on either side of Main Street to allow for signs such as the one proposed by <br />County Bank. <br /> <br />Page 9 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.