My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-11-07 Minutes
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
1990-11-07 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2010 10:10:22 AM
Creation date
1/5/2010 10:10:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Meeting Minutes - F & Z <br /> November 7, 1990 <br /> page three <br /> Commission member Vermeulen expressed agreement with Commission <br /> member Wilharber's comments. She also felt that since the <br /> neighbors have voiced opposition this should also be considered. <br /> Commission member Wilharber asked that City Staff check on the <br /> setback requirements of the DNR versus the City setback <br /> requirements. <br /> Acting Chairperson Welk felt that nothing unique exists and it <br /> would be hard to justify. If the lot split was approved it could <br /> cause problems down the road. <br /> Commission member Drilling stated that granting the lot split <br /> would set a precedent. <br /> Ms. Peterson noted that she had a variance before to have a <br /> horse, and that certain guidelines were set. She asked the <br /> Planning and Zoning if they could set strict guidelines that she <br /> would follow, but that would discourage others from requesting <br /> the same. She felt she was not like most people, since she would <br /> only want the lot split to build a home for herself and her son <br /> to live in. <br /> Commission member Wilharber expressed that a horse is different <br /> than a home. A horse will usually go with the owner if they <br /> moved, but a house could be there forever. The guidelines would <br /> be hard to control with the possibility of different home owners. <br /> Ms. Peterson expressed that since there is creative financing, <br /> couldn't there also be creative variances. <br /> Council liaison Buckbee questioned if Ms, Peterson's variance <br /> request could be justified /denied under the criteria that must be <br /> met to allow a variance. <br /> The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the follewina <br /> sections of Ordinance #4 and made comment: <br /> Section 65.03 - - There is no special conditions and <br /> circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure <br /> or building involved that would not result from the <br /> action of the petitioner; <br /> Section 65.03 -2 - Literal interpretation of the provision of <br /> this ordinance would not deprive the petitioner of <br /> rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same <br /> district under the terms of the ordinance; <br /> Section 65.03 -3 - Granting of the variance requested will <br /> confer on the applicant special privilege that is <br /> denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br /> buildings in the same district; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.