My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001-09-04 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2001
>
2001-09-04 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 3:01:00 PM
Creation date
1/18/2006 1:56:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers recommended the Olsons check with City Staff to <br />determine what the industrial requirements are. <br /> <br />Mr. Olson questioned why the exterior of the building needed to be masonry. <br />Chairperson Hanson explained that requiring a certain type of construction ensures that <br />the City will have buildings conforming to a certain dollar value in the industrial area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wilharber commented that he thinks the concept is a good one and the <br />business is something the City needs. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine indicated the Olsons should check with City Staff to be sure they <br />are aware of all of the necessary requirements. <br /> <br /> <br />2.Mr. Tracy Tratar – Corner Lot with Two (2) Front Yards and Construction of a <br />Garage Comparative to the Lot Line <br /> <br />Mr. Tratar addressed the Commission and explained that he would like to construct a <br />two-car garage on his corner lot and was told he could not do so because he would not <br />meet the required 35-foot setback. He then stated he feels the Ordinance is confusing and <br />does not make sense because if he were to build a detached structure the setback is only <br />10 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Palzer clarified that if the garage were attached it would become part of the principal <br />structure and be subject to the 35 foot setback. He then explained that, if the garage were <br />detached, the setback is 10 feet but noted the size of the structure would be limited by <br />yard area and would need to be built in the rear yard not the side yard. <br /> <br />Mr. Tratar stated there are many garages in the area that, in his opinion, do not meet the <br />35-foot setback. He then stated he had just applied for a variance in White Bear Lake and <br />the fee was $80.00 compared to the $170.00 in Centerville. He further commented that it <br />is very upsetting to have to pay twice as much for the same thing. <br /> <br />Mrs. Tratar indicated there are homes with garages that do not meet the 35-foot setback <br />in the area. She then questioned why those residents were allowed to build the garages <br />that way and they are not. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the last sentence of the Ordinance creates <br />the problem and asked why that sentence is needed. Mr. Palzer explained that, <br />previously, the City had considered a corner lot to have two side yards and two front <br />yards which meant they had no rear yard and would not be allowed an accessory <br />structure. He then explained that the sentence may have been added to protect line of <br />sight. <br /> <br />Mr. Tratar asked why he could build a detached garage 10 feet from the property line. <br />Chairperson Hanson clarified that any detached structure is an accessory structure and <br />Page 9 of 16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.