My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994-04-05 Minutes
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
1994-04-05 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2010 8:58:18 AM
Creation date
1/5/2010 8:58:14 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
P &Z MEETING MINUTES <br /> APRIL 5, 1994 <br /> PAGE TWO <br /> Chairperson Tourville noted he had a local developer /builder look <br /> at the property. Chairperson Tourville noted the builder stated <br /> a twin home is not nearly preferably as single family homes. <br /> Chairperson Tourville expressed that a twin home may cause more <br /> problems for the City than single family homes. Chairperson <br /> Tourville noted that what happens with one twin home has a <br /> bearing on the other (i.e. paint, shingles). <br /> Chairperson Tourville stated that two single family homes may be <br /> better than a twin home, however it still does not address how to <br /> justify the granting of the variance. <br /> Commission member Drilling thought it would be a mistake for the <br /> Planning and Zoning Commission to grant the lot split /variance <br /> request. It does not meet the standards for granting a variance. <br /> Commission member Drilling noted there may problems down the road <br /> if it is granted. <br /> Mr. Hansen noted the land is peculiar due to its shape and this <br /> is not a result of his actions. <br /> Commission member Drilling explained that Mr. Hansen bought the <br /> lot aware of the shape and square footage. Commission member <br /> Drilling noted he has a 100 x 300 lot and he would not be able to <br /> subdivide the parcel because it would not meet the frontage <br /> requirements. <br /> Mr. Hansen expressed he felt his lot was also unique because it <br /> is a lake lot. Mr. Hansen felt that lake lots are traditionally <br /> not as wide. <br /> Mr. Hansen feels that literal interpretation of the ordinance <br /> deprives him of rights enjoyed by others. Mr. Hansen noted there <br /> are 75 foot lake lots on Peltier Lake Drive. <br /> It was noted the Burque Addition No. 1 was platted in 1954, prior <br /> to the adoption of Ordinance 10 (adopted April 1961, repealed <br /> July 1982) and the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance 4 <br /> (adopted July 1982). <br /> Chairperson Tourville expressed, in his opinion, lakeshore lots <br /> present a different set of problems than inland lots. <br /> Commission member Vermeulen expressed concern regarding setting a <br /> precedent by taking a conforming lot and splitting the lot into <br /> two non - conforming lots. <br /> Commission member LaMotte noted that if Sorel Street was vacated <br /> the variance request would be lessen. Commission member LaMotte <br /> questioned if the City Council would reconsider their decision <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.