1989-04-04 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Centerville held its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 4, 1989, at City Hall. Assistant Chairperson Welk called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Vermeulen, Drilling, Lindgren, and Council liaison, Neumann. Absent: Tourville. Motion by Drilling, second by Vermeulen, to approve the minutes of the March 7, 1989, meeting, motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS City Building Inspector, Gunnar Pettersen, was present at the request of P & Z to explain the variance request for 1567 Peltier Lake Drive and why Section 34.03 of Ordinance #4 does not apply in this case. He stated that the house next door at 1585 Peltier Lake Drive sticks out 12 feet closer to the street and was "Grandfathered" in. It is 29 feet from the pavement. Mr. and Mrs. Scherbel want to add on a garage and addition which would come out 6 feet closer to the street than their home is now, and would be 40 feet from the pavement. Most of the other homes on the street are 42 feet from the pavement. Mr. Pettersen stated that Section 34.03 does not apply because it uses a variation of only 6 feet. He also stated that: - the addition will not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. - the present home on the lot is only 22 by 28 feet and does not meet codes. - the present home does not have a garage. A short discussion of the building at the northwest corner of Main Street and Peltier Lake Drive followed. The Building Inspector stated that it was the intent at the time to have that building line up with those on Peltier Lake Drive. Flr. Scherbel stated that although it does line up, it is closer to the street because the street curves toward the property at that point. Assistant Chairperson Welk asked for comments from the Commission: - Drilling stated that the intent is to only have to do this for the two properties - one on each side of the one that protrudes. - Lindgren stated that he can foresee no problems because of the issuance of a variance in this case. - Vermeulen had no comment. - Welk stated that the square footage of the present home does not meet present criteria and because of the fact that there is a home on the lot now, it would be difficult to do much else with it.