HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-06 Packet
tervi{{e
'Estab{ished 1857
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Tl'ESDA Y, [\larch 6, 2007
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call
ll. APPEARANCES/PRESENTA TION(S)
m. PUBLIC HEARING (S)
1. Mr. JeffHanzal- Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) (Cont'd from
Previous Meeting)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Comprehensive Plan Review **Please Bring Your Copy**
a. Consultant Selection Process
v. NEW BUSINESS
1. B & R Properties, 6805 - 20th Avenue South - Site Plan Approval (Building
Addition)
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
VIT. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. February 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
**REMINDERS**
Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting - March 7, 2007- 630 p. In Council Chambers
City Council Meeting - i\'tarch 14,2007...630 p.m. Council Chambers
Joint Work Session - \1arch 2 L 2007 - 630 pm. Council Chambers
City Council Meeting -March 28,2007 - 6:30 p.m Council Chambers
Larkin
Hoifu'om!
Larldn Hoffman Daly & lindgren Ud.
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55431-1194
GENERAL: 952-835-3800
FAX: 952-896.3333
WEB: www.1arkinhoffman.com
February 28, 2007
Members of the City of Centerville Planning Commission
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville,~ 55038
Re: 10-Foot Setback Variance for Lot 6 of the Hanzal Subdivision; Our File: 31,607-00
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Our client, Jeff and Laura Hanzal ("Hanzal"), have applied for a variance from the City of
Centerville (the "City") R-2 Single-Family District setback requirements. Under the City Zoning
Code (the "Zoning Code"), the R-2 District requires a 35-foot front setback. Hanzal initially
applied for a 20-foot variance but are now reducing their request to a 10-foot variance from the
front setback requirement.
At the last Planning Commission on February 6,2007, the Hanzals presented the variance request
for Lot 6 of a six-lot Subdivision at 7381 Old Mill Road (the "Site"). The Planning Commission
found that the initial 20-foot variance satisfied the last four of the five total required findings
outlined in the City's variance application. The Planning Commission then tabled the application
regarding the first variance finding in order to allow the Hanzals time to determine the minimum
setback variance for Lot 6. As requested by the Planning Commission, the Hanzals have
reengineered the building plans for Lot 6 and have reduced their request to a 10-foot variance.
Even with the reduced variance request, Lot 6 continues to meet all other City requirements,
including the minimum building size. Lot 6 now provides a 1,300 square foot building
foundation, which exceeds the 1,050 square foot building size requirement under R-2 District
regulations. This amended variance request is illustrated on the enclosed Site Plan for Lot 6.
This letter amends the current application pending before the Planning Commission from a 20-foot
variance request to a 10-foot variance from the R-2 District 35-foot setback requirement.
Moreover, this letter explains that the Hanzal application satisfies the hardship standards under the
City's first required variance fmding as well as summarizes the findings for the other four variance
requirements.
L. Description of the Site.
Lot 6 is the Site's southernmost lot. The southwestern edge of the lot abuts Clearwater Creek.
Lot 6is subject to Rice Creek Rules that require 100-foot drainage easement from the centerline of
Clearwater Creek. Rice Creek Rule E.4. The 100-foot drainage easement significantly impacts
Lot 6 compared to the rest of the subdivision because it effectively removes approximately four-
fifths of the buildable area on Lot 6. In addition to the 100-;footdrainageeasement, there is also a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodway Line that similarly reduces the
Members of the City of Centerville Planning Cominission
February 28, 2007
Page 2
buildable area for Lot 6. Despite the impact of the unique natural features of Lot 6, the property
meets all other City regulations, including the minimum building size. Lot 6 allows for 1,300
square feet at the foundation level. .
2.. 'City of Centerville Variance Requirements.
Under Minnesota Law, variances from the literal provisions of a zoning ordinance may be allowed
if "strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
individual property under consideration." Minn. Stat. ~ 462.357, subd. 6. The City's variance
application requires that the following conditions must be satisfied in order to grant a variance:
a Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions
of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be
strictly enforced.
b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel ofland.
d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare and safety and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use
in the zoning district that the subject property is located.
As discussed above, the Planning Commission found that the Hanzal's initial 20-foot variance
request satisfied the last four conditions and in discussing the :first condition requested that the
Hanzals attempt to reduce the variance to 10 feet. The Hanzal's amended 10-foot variance
satisfies the first variance condition as well as the four other conditions.
a. Because of the Darticular physical surroundin~s. shape or topographical conditions
of the ::cel or lot. the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship. as
distin . shed from a mere inconvenience. should the apDlicable ordinance be
strictly enforced.
The proposed 10-foot variance would relieve an undue hardship on Lot 6 that is due to the
property's natural environmental features. Under Minnesota Statute ~ 462.357, undue
hardship means: (1) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ifused
under conditions allowed by the official controls; (2) the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and (3) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Members of the City ofCenterville Planning Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 3
First, the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if required to adhere to the
35-foot setback. In Minnesota a finding of undue hardship requires a "showing that the
property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by
the ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917,922 (Minn. App. Ct.
1989). The Hanzals are requesting the variance in order to use the property for a single-
family home. Without the variance the lot cannot support a building pad that meets the
City's minimum building area of 1,050 square feet. Using Lot 6 for a single-family home
is a reasonable use in a single-family zoning district. Second, under Minnesota law, even
mere practical difficulties may justify an area variance. See id. A variance from the City's
setback regulations is an area variance. See id. The 10-foot variance addresses more than
practical difficulties, it allows a reasonable use - a single-family home in the R-2 District.
Next, the setback difficulty for Lot 6 is due to circumstances unique to the property. The
topography of Clearwater Creek and resulting drainage easement and FEMA Floodway
line significantly impact the shape and buildable area for Lot 6. The variance addresses
these unique characteristics to allow for a reasonable use on the lot.
Finally, the 10- foot variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Site
and surrounding area is zoned single family. The proposed zoning for the HanzaI
Subdivision is R-2 Single-Family, which is also the zoning designation to the west ofthe
subdivision. The neighborhood across the street is also zoned residential.
Based on the above findings, the proposed 10- foot variance satisfies the undue hardship
requirements under both the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statutes. The other four
required variance findings are discussed below.
b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel onand. but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this propertY but not applicable to other
properties in the vicinity or zoning district.
Similar to the undue hardship standards discussed above, the 10-foot variance would
address the extraordinary circumstances caused by shape of Clearwater Creek. The
topography of the Creek determines the location of the laO-foot drainage easement. The
lO-foot front setback variance allows a single-family home in the R-2 District that meets
all the other requirements under City Zoning Code. Lot 6 is the only lot in the subdivision
requesting this variance.
c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by anv nersons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The hardship for Lot 6 is a combination of the impact of the regulations governing
Clearwater Creek and the minimum front setback requirements that together limit the
buildable area. The 10-foot variance allows a single-family home in the R-2 District.
Members of the City of Centerville Planning Commission
February 28, 2007
Page 4
d. The variance will not adversely affect public health. welfare and safety and will not
be detrimental or iniurious to propertY or improvements in the neighborhood.
The variance will not adversely impact public health, welfare or safety. First, the variance
allows a single-family home in a single-family residential district. Second, as discussed
during the February 6th Planning Commission meeting, in order to address any concerns
regarding line of sight the engineers for the Hanzals calculated the line of sight for the 20-
foot variance. The engineers calculations illustrated that the 20-foot variance would not
impact the line of sight primarily because Lot 6 is on the outside curve of Old Mill Road.
Finally, the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The variance has been
reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet in order to bring the house more in line with the
surrounding homes.
e. Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use
in the zoninl! district that the subiect prooerty is located.
The 10-foot front setback variance will allow a single-family home in the single-family R-
2 District. The desired use is allowed under the Zoning Code.
Conclusions
The Hanzal's 10-foot front-setback variance request meets the requirements for a variance under
the City Zoning Code and State Statute. The Hanzals are proposing a reasonable use - a single-
family home in a residential district The geography of Clearwater Creek creates a unique lot and
the variance addresses the difficulties arising from the property's topography and natural features.
In their attempt to address the City's and neighbors' concerns, the Hanzals have reduced their
initial variance request to 10 feet. Finally, the Hanzal' s variance request more than meets the
undue hardship requirements, it allows a development that builds off the existing residential
character of the neighborhood and enhances the surrounding area. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions regarding the variance application or this letter.
Sincerely,
JOUe~f~~
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial: 952-896-3232
Direct Dial Fax: 952-842-1735
Email: jvossen@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Jeff and Laura Hanzal
Dallas Larson, City Administrator
City of Centerville Mayor and Councilrnembers
1122706.1
~
... II
....
~"'~"f'" ...... .
\
\
r
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
:s:~
~~
~&.
,
"
, ,
~ -
,
-90
6--.... ^
""-" ( ). I
,,^",..-:I::.,....-......... ".
, ", -.
I
I
I
I
,
,
I \
,^~
'~
,1
I
/
\
.. ,
I "
/
Teresa Bender
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
JEFFERY J HANZAL LAURA J HANZAL U1hanzal@msn.com]
Monday, February 26,20072:38 PM
TBender@centervillemn.com
dlarson@centervillemn.com
Hanzal Lot 6 Diagram
L:J--=--
- --~
,~/''''~
HANZAL-LOT6.pdf
(152 KB)
Teresa,
The new diagram of Lot 6 is attached.
for next weeks meeting. The requested
(instead of 15ft as previously noted) .
Please include this in the P&Z packet
variance is now 25ft from the ROW
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more....then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information
please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
1
.!l.....
.T 892.00
. B 1188.00 .
. ee6.~ .
^
-< )
< t" ".
'- "
T 890.00
. 8 lIP.OO
-.f)
(;)
J:>
it
, '" - I
( " -
" I
( ,
-,'7-
~ t.~\Si\\'lG
\-IO\.lSt.
..- -
,
./
,/
,/
,/ < I
i\t~G '<
t.~\~St." ,
\-I" I
/
~ -
./
,/
\
^ \
-< )
...... ........................ < ~ : " \
.......~948~~;..898...900.~ I ~ "I _ \
....... '" 1 \
....t..... ,
- ~.."t...~ \
-. \
"
,
,/
,/
". ,
,/
<
/""
, ".
,/
".".
OWN E R
PROBp~RRTIES
I
f
l
t
i
I
i
1
.
~"- - ERIK -
THE HATCHED
FLOOD PLAIN ~~~A INDICATES THE
DURING THE CONST~~NT ESTABLISHED
'""" "" FIRST BUILDING MY CTION OF THE
~:;t.':":' FROM CHUCK PLOWE UNDERSTANDING
BUILDING CONSTRU IS THAT ANY
,." '<u.<" THE EASEMENT CTION WITHIN
~,i':,~;,to" EASEMENT WOU~~ ~OT ALLOWED, THE
RELOCA TED AN EED TO BE
INFIL TRA TIO'N P D POSSIBLY THE
CONT ACT ME WOND REDESIGNED
TH COMMENTS, '
B & R P
ROPERTIES
ADDITION
CONTRACTOR
CON~~~~~TI
2161 1071h L 0 H
~~o~ne. MN SSdA.;e4 Northeast
ne: 763-784-1950
ARCHITECT
A Rl A tot PER r
1383~ H , TEe T S
~~m La~Ee.l~~o~53S64
one: 763-755-1211
~~i
"':l!l
'"
II
, ,
.jC':'.}
;1 ~o~\~ sf2rCRETE ClJRB DETAIL
@~~,E,s~r~~~ PARKING SIGN
EliJ 6" B
'" SC#.L[,OLLARD DETAIL
I/'Z .. 141
~8
Ai~~t/tRC\S
~~:,:~;~"l~OI~5iio~\ ill
...",...~.......;,',_~~~o:~;:', 7'J.'."
I," 'I, (76]) 78+-1!lSO
ll=--:-'I FAXJ8.4.-!l707
1.':= ~
Sn:1 ~i7~~~~'EINC-
~lIWNES01~5S-fJ4
l-
e en
u..UJ
c:: 1= ..
e ~ -
._ UJ ~
~-:: UJ ~
"'C c... l:
"'C 0 ~
<~-
c...J1
"'C '>
IV ~
" ~ ~
c.~U
e
Q:CO
~:.-:p~,~...""."",~..
Projlocl D~.I!l~.r: BE~ R
D'a.,.,Ily.IdJG
~B,._ll..fUlL
Rewl.iD~1
~
SITE PLAN
OPTION '1
Sheet Number
Al
Project NQ, 06121'Z-1
__ 8
l A t.l P E: R T
ARCHITECTS
13!37N[Unco'nStr..,~
F.~::;;.,~l::~~~:~:.~~j", ~!~
w
ARCHITECT CERTIFICATION:
I_CElHIFY"'.'1>II51'lAH-
SP!'CIfIl:,A~cao OllllU'alT .~s
~':~;~,iO~T
-~~~~-'^---
~ .... ~O...(""\P
~~T_~~-"
~~~
\'1, (:17~':osr;
:-SI
STCIfE CONSTRUCllCJ,l, !He.
2181-101lhlANEtU
IllAINtWlNNESOrAs.s4:J.4
"'..
'"
D:2iJ
I I
Ii ~t~, "j~c ,~, 'CLL~~ i
ii' i'___mj: I ~__n_j il :L____ __i l__ _____J I EXlSllNGELECTRIC"-l"'E~ 'll
~U-:~~E'" TO BE ~ II
I I W;"~SE I I ~
~- - - - - - - - -~ - -- - - - -~ n~ - - - - - -L - - -- - -~ - -fll
~
~! ! i i ,./1\
I I I I ;:mooy'~...,"\ I\I---~
i i i I 't~1 ~~~1
:, L,/ I::'
I, 0 ~G' 1\-1
... V'l
0
u... uJ
c: i= ..
0 ~ '0
uJ '"
"';:; uJ CU
:.c 0... c
c
'1:l 0 ~
-< ~ ~...
0...
'1:l 'S:
QJ iiJ
Vl ~ E
0 CU
o..~ U
0
... CO
0...
~
<.""'''''2lIOI
w,..,l '-""'0"" """""". ~....
i>rDjectl>uigner:IlEJolR
D'D.nByMJG
CheckodBy.LL/lt.tL
~
@-
-r-
~lJ
~
1..,.1
l II I I J L 1 I 11 ''''''''''Wj
,~~.._ 4'__~ 17'~_~___~_~~.---=~~'
4}
FLOOR PLAN
Sheet Number
1 FLOOR PLAN
A2 SCALE: 1 _ 1-0
NOt. TH
8
A2
Proiect No, 061212-1
...---PREFlNISHEDIiIETAl
CAPFLASfjINGTO
MATCH DlISTlNG
EXISTlNGBU'LDlNG~
SIo\OOnI F.o.cE CCIK. BI.Y.
TOM"TCHEXISTlNG .,
TOP ~ :~;~~Y,
ROCl<FACECONC.BLK.,
TO 'olATtH'EXlSTlNG
cccccc~cccccccccccccc~~cccc~cccccccc~cccccccccccccc~~~~~~i~cc~cccc~cc~~ -~~~ ~ !~"'~~!,~
~~~~g":.'lf,i'~~'~o "-0... o-~ ----~ ~,,~:~~::,',~
LOC,loTlO,.,.S WI CONTRACTOR 0~U~) OOOR TO t.lATQ-l EXlSTlNG .,
1 NORTH ELEVATION
AJ SCAlL: 1 B_1 0
$ ~ _~Z~,Io_~"Y
,
$~IDooFl~
$~P_Of"\I:~TlNG
2 SOUTH ELEVATION
AJ SC"LE: 1 B_1 0
r
~
i
.
i
~
!
~
~
J
I
.
TCf'E~ _M~:~~Y ,
I_----=--:.:..::...:~~::~~:;"-- :!'-::-"--~...': ~=._~::-~"~~':~!4--:-,o-~ ,~
I" -- -
~ -
I ~ -- - ~ _~ ~-~ c_ ~--~- ---;~--~;; -::----~
Fl:~SH-ED,;~+
TOP[t_F:~~:+
,
t=="=======================~===========~~~~~~~~~~==================:=====~
J WEST ELEVATION
AJ SCALE' 1 B _ 1-0
,.~
Pro.
Draw
",'
R~wisi
12.2
Sheet
Projec
---
LA t.l PER T
ARCHITECTS
\S!l17 N(. Uru:.oln Sir",'"
Ham Lok., 101M 55304 I.'
;'':::;::;;:''~~~:~~~':::''.J.1~' .2'_'
ARCHllECT CERTlflC,IoTlON
~i:~~~~.
PREPARED DYloIElJl lKlERlIYIIf!Ecr
~~~~~:.
J;~~-C;1~
I-J (~:~) 7~~~~~
I' .
I=::JJ
ST04E CONSlRUCnON, INC.
216\-\Ollhv.HEN.E-
BLAlNE.lfIN~TA554J4
...
o
u.
c:
o
"';:;
:.0
"'C
-<(
(/')
w
i= ..
c.:: 15
w '"
w ..
Q. ~
O~
c.::
Q.
::!:'
'S;
~
C
..
u
"'C
CIJ
o c.::
a.~
o
Q:CC
0"""""
~u...,...,._"""
j&Ct O~';<;In~r; BEfoI R.
nBy:MJG
k~d By: UfLt.ll
~
ELEVATIONS
Number
A3
t No. 061212-1
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their regularly
scheduled meeting on February 6, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
COUNCIL LIAISON:
Vice-Chair Jennefer Klennert Hunt
Commissioner Ben Fehrenbacher
Commissioner D. Love
Commissioner Mark Pangell
Commissioner Thomas Wood
Commissioner Robert Wright,
Chair Brian Hanson iN 0 I
Council Member Linda Broussard
~e..""d.o..
, .. ,,. '.. ...
", .. ,- '.
.. '''', ..
, ".. '" '. .
... " .. ,"', ...
..... ..'.... ...... ......0. ..... ....... ...i....,...
' . . , .... .
..... .. " ,__ .dO. ".. .
. ...... ... '.' ..--.... ". ..
....... '" . '__n_ ".. ....
... ......... ... ..' d' ......
o. ..,.. .,_ .........
.. ... .. .. ... .......
~".,.."..'..~.. \"..". p."..."'."'."...........:.....'...' p,."....,.,...."..'o.....:. > r>/ 0>0<></ ."",.. ....
.""". ".'.0...'." ", '.'.' '.':' ""':.:.:':'..
., ... ... .. '" ... ... ...~.
.. ... .. .. " .... ..,.
.. .. ... ..... .. ... .
...... .. .. ... ... ..
.. .. ... .. ....... n.
::::: .::::::, :::::. >::" ::::::::::;::> ,"
......... ........ ..
......... ......
.......... ......
.......... ....... ..
......... ..'
ABSENT:
STAFF:
City Administrator Dallas Larson
I. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
II. APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS
None
III. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Mr. JeffHanzal- Request for Variance (7381 Old Mill Road) Continued from
Previous Meeting.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Hanzal, 7381 Old Mill Road, addressed the Commissioners and the audience. He put
forward a power point presentation on the application request for a structure variance of
20 feet for Lot 6. He indicated the front setback would be 30 feet from the curb to the
closest point of the structure due to its position outside the horizontal curve.
Mr. Hanzal stated Centerville is nearly fully built-out so it is important to maximize the
use of the remaining land to enhance the tax base. He reported the City would benefit
from the additional license and building permit revenue, and the increased property
Page 1 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
values that would positively impact Centerville's bottom line. He pointed out a
significant amount of the proceeds from Lot 6 would be used to subsidize the neighbor's
assessments for Old Mill Road utility and road improvements.
Mr. Hanzal discussed the property value concerns by providing photos and diagrams of
the property. He compared setback elements of Lot 6 to those of the Deer Pass and Eagle
Pass developments. He indicated surrounding property values would be protected by
covenants and the fact that Lot 6 had the potential to support a 3350 square foot home,
which is at the upper range of homes in the surrounding area.
Mr. Hanzal addressed safety concerns stating the driveway redesign would accommodate
a larger green space where children could play. He stated the driveway would provide
two parking spaces that would not encroach on the Right of Way. Mr. Hanzal displayed
a line-of-site diagram and photos of the curved road to depict how safety was a prime
concern.
Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal what the setback was at Deer Pass. Mr. Hanzal
replied it was at least 34 feet from the curb.
Mr. Hanzal explained how approving the variance would comply with the five criteria
outlined in Minnesota Statutes and City Code 154:
1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions
of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced
Mr. Hanzal stated the bend in Clearwater Creek renders the lot unusable for reasonable
residential use without a variance. Mr. Hanzal reported the variance would relieve the
undue hardship and support residential development in a similar manner to others
commonly enjoyed in R-2 districts.
2) The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
Mr. Hanzal indicated the majority of the surrounding areas are not subject to watershed
or wetland restrictions. The variance would correct those uncommon extraordinary
circumstances. Such variations have occurred and were approved in other developments
where similar circumstances are found.
Mr. Hanzal stated the proposed variance is not exclusively based on income alone. The
variance is being requested because the characteristSics of the lot should be enjoyed by
potential owners.
Page 2 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Mr. Hanzal reported a good portion of the proceeds would benefit many parties including
the City of Centerville, neighbors being assessed for Old Mill Road improvements and
decrease the overall tax base.
3) The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Mr. Hanzal stated the hardship is the result of factors not created by persons having an
interest; including: the bend of the creek, the re-routing of Old Mill Road during the
Acorn Creek developments, and ordinance restrictions of the City of Centerville and the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Hanzal stated there was no indication the lot contained a hardship until the
preliminary plat was drafted in late 2006. It is impossible for a common person to
foresee a pending hardship as complex as this without the ability or knowledge of the
situation.
Mr. Hanzal indicated he had no experience with development nor had any indication
from the previous owner that there were issues; therefore, prior knowledge would be
impossible.
Mr. Hanzal stated the two out lots were purchased for $1.00 in order to attach the
mortgage to the legal property parcel that contained the residential structure. This is not
an indication that there was prior knowledge of the hardship.
Mr. Hanzal indicated his knowledge was limited to the City's zoning ordinances allowing
the land to be used for residential building purposes.
4) The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Mr. Hanzal stated the variance would support the increase to surrounding properties and a
decrease in the overall tax base. He indicated the structure and driveway would be
developed to accommodate all R-2 guidelines with the exception of the front setback.
Mr. Hanzal reported the structure and driveway have been designed to maximize green
space and retaining walls have been designed as low as possible for public and
emergency personnel safety.
5) Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a permitted use in
the zoning district that the subject property is located.
Mr. Hanzal stated the lot and structure would be for single-family, residential use only, as
commonly enjoyed in other R districts. He stated he purchased the property knowing the
City's zoning ordinances supported the use ofthis property for residential development.
Page 3 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
In conclusion, Mr. Hanzal addressed the letters of opposition. He stated the safety issue
of the small front yard is not an issue because there are 38,000 square feet in the back
yard for play. He addressed the police patrol issues indicating if the structure is closer to
the road, criminals would have a better place to hide is unfounded. Mr. Hanzal stated he
believes the high speeds on Old Mill Road would be lessened once the property is
developed.
Mr. Hanzal stated there is no way one could find the lot required a variance until the
engineer was out to look at it. He indicated he understood the concerns of the neighbors
and he is sensitive to them.
Mr. Jon Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, asked Mr. Hanzal how large the garage would be.
Mr. Hanzal replied it would be a two car garage.
Mr. Krueger asked about the designated flood plain area in the back yard. Mr. Hanzal
replied it is a flood plain only to a point.
Mr. Krueger asked if the back yard would be a flooded area and if the house could be put
in line with the others in the neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt commented to the audience that the letters from the neighbors
have been addressed.
Mrs. Norma Essex, 7333 Old Mill Road, stated she was told by the Rice Creek
Watershed the flood plain is seven feet.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal to comment on the size of the proposed
retaining wall.
Mr. Charles Plow, Sr., Plow Engineering, responded that the height of retaining wall
varies to meet the needs of the grade based on the property survey.
Mr. Krueger stated he lived across the street from Lot 6 and opposed the variance
because it would not fit the neighborhood. He reported the other driveways in the area
have a 50-foot setback from curb and this one would be only 30 feet. Mr. Krueger
mentioned the line of site is a matter of opinion as there is a bend in the curve and a hill
where cars could not be seen until the last minute. He pointed out traffic from Eagle
Brook Church use Old Mill Road as a shortcut. He indicated traffic speeds would
increase because of the additional traffic.
Mr. Krueger stated he is here to address the needs of the community and the
neighborhoods. He stressed Deer Pass development is a cuI de sac with no through
traffic and Eagle Pass is a mix of townhomes and single family homes with winding
streets; they do not compare with the neighborhood. He pointed out some lots are zoned
rural and Lot 6 would be zoned R-2. Mr. Krueger stated the garage would not compare
Page 4 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
to others in the neighborhood and the foundation would be smaller than others in the
neighborhood. He asked how the hardship could not be considered a financial gain.
Mr. Krueger asked if a variance was requested from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Hanzal replied it had not.
Mr. Krueger pointed out on the diagram where the driveway was located.
Mr. Hanzal stated it would be at 30 feet from closest point ofthe structure.
Mr. Krueger stated the neighbors want him to follow the same guidelines they had to
follow. He stressed he wanted the house to conform to the other homes in the area. He
mentioned that a portion of the property was an outlot at one time and considered not
developable.
Commissioner Pangell asked Mr. Hanzal if the house would it be in a registered flood
plain if it were set further back and if so, why would someone want to build there.
Mr. Plow Sr. reported other similar situations had sought a variance from the Rice Creek
Watershed and were turned down; therefore Mr. Hanzal did not pursue it.
Mr. Krueger stated the 20-foot variance is huge and unprecedented indicating that if he
wanted to add onto his garage and add 20 feet he should be able to.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt replied that the Commission is very concerned with setting a
precedent, and wanted to make sure there is a good reason to grant the variance.
Mr. Krueger pointed out the Commission must look at what the neighborhood wanted.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher replied that the Commission must consider what is best for
the City as a whole.
City Administrator Larson reminded everyone the issue to be addressed is whether the
request meets the criteria to qualify for the variance
Mrs. Ladine Krueger, 7368 Old Mill Road, stated this is not an easy thing to oppose
because they have a great relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal. She indicated there is
a safety issue as children would play in the front yard in the summer because the
mosquitoes are so bad in the back yard. She reiterated that the Deer Pass and Eagle Pass
developments are not relevant to Lot 6 and to compare them is misleading. She stated
neighbors believe their homes are their investments and are here to protect them. Mrs.
Krueger asked the Planning Commission to help them protect their investments by
considering all the reasons brought forward in totality.
Page 5 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Commissioner Love asked if the foundation size is 1,117 square feet and the R-2
requirement is 1,050 square feet, could the house and garage be pushed back and still
meet the R-2 requirements.
Mr. Hanzal replied it might be possible but the house would still require a variance.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked if the other driveways he was comparing to were PUDs
(Planned Unit Developments). Mr. Hanzal replied yes.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal if he had considered a PUD. Mr. Hanzal
replied yes, but he was not sure it was right for this lot. He indicated that if he did a PUD
the house would be fine. He stated he wanted individual family homes to conform to the
rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hanzal also replied to the statement about his back yard,
indicating it remained dry 90 percent of the time. He stated the garage size is a matter of
preference.
City Administrator Larson explained what a PUD was, for the benefit of the individuals
in attendance.
Mr. Krueger mentioned developers are required to pay Park Dedication Fees or donate
land. He stated the outlot could be donated for City park land.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher asked Mr. Hanzal if the appropriate covenants would be put
in place if the variance is approved. Mr. Hanzal replied the covenants would be strictly
followed.
Mr. Kruger asked if Mr. Hanzal's other lots could be split equally so variances were not
required. Mr. Hanzal replied this would require moving or tearing down his house and
that is not an option.
Mr. Kevin Malani, 7354 Old Mill Road, stated granting Mr. Hanzal the 20-foot variance
would put his house right in front of him when he opened his door.
Mr. Tom Wilharber, 6849 Centerville Road, stated he had served on the City Council for
18 years, served as the Mayor for five years, and also served on the Planning
Commission. He reported this area was intended to be zoned only R-5, so he is surprised
at the R-2 designation. Mr. Wilharber pointed out the lot was never a buildable lot; it
was always an outlot. He stated Eagle Pass was a planned development with coved
streets to allow more homes to be built and Deer Pass is on a cuI de sac which allows
shorter lots.
Ms. Sandy Salazar, 7336 Old Mill Road, stated she is concerned for the safety of children
and the fast traffic on the road.
Page 6 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Mrs. Krueger addressed the Commission again and displayed photos of what the
neighbors would be looking at. She pointed out how close the houses are to the street at
30 feet and at 50 feet. She mentioned the homes are not all set back at the same footage.
Mrs. Essex stated everyone in the development had a two car garage, two cars and room
for storage. She stated the future owners of Lot 6 would not have enough room for more
than two cars and no extra storage space. She stated extensive flooding did occur in this
area on many occasions during the year. She emphasized the area could not be used
during the summer because of the mosquitoes and bugs. She indicated safety is a large
issue for her. She reported that when they built their home, they had to comply with the
current conditions and did not get a variance.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the Commission would consider the five criteria for
. .
approvmg a vanance.
Commissioner Pangell stated the Commission had already recommended the change to
an R-2 zoning designation to the Council.
Mr. Plow, Sr. stated the Rice Creek Watershed District had not given their final approval
of the development plan, but he expected it soon.
Motion bv Commissioner Pane:ell. seconded by Commissioner Love. to close the
public hearine: on the request for variance at 7:50 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimouslv.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated the first criterion to be met is: Because of the particular
physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the
proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced.
Commissioner Love reiterated the most important issue to determine IS if an undue
hardship exists.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher agreed and stated he was unsure if the fact that Mr. Hanzal
did not know of the hardship qualified as meeting the criteria for an undue hardship.
Commissioner Love asked if there were records indicating the City Council designated
the property as not developable.
Mr. Wilharber replied it should be in the early records.
City Administrator Larson stated the City would have commented on the portion that was
not buildable-the remnant portion left over after development of the land across the street,
but that it did not affect the rest of the lots.
Commissioner Love stated he did not look at it as a whole.
Page 7 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson responded it is irrelevant now and must be looked at as a
whole.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated her issue with undue hardship is that it is often hard to
know if a property is in a floodplain by just looking at it.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stressed he did not want to set a precedent of "did not
know" as an undue hardship.
Commissioner Love stated the Commission must set exact variables.
Commissioner Pangell stated each situation is unique.
Commissioner Wright agreed.
Councilmember Broussard recommended that the Commission look first at the criteria
the variance did meet.
Criteria 5: Variances will not be granted that allow a use that is otherwise not a
permitted use in the zoning district that the subject property is located.
All commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 4: The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Pangell stated he lives on an inside comer on Eagle Pass. He mentioned
the line of site is often a problem and agreed an inside comer is a positive in Mr.
Hanzal's favor. He stated the line of sight appears to not be a problem.
Commissioner Wood stated he lives at 7307 Deer Pass Drive where his children play in
the back yard of the house. He indicated he did not see the safety issue as the
responsibility of the owner as long as they met the criteria of the state.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he appreciates the safety of children, but the
assumption that there would be children on the property is not at issue.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 3: The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not
been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated this is a Rice Creek issue and Rice Creek usually does
not give variances so it is not worth pursuing.
Page 8 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Commissioner Wood indicated water management and Rice Creek are strict. He stated
the property had no where to go back.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Criteria 2: The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire
to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct
extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other
property in the vicinity or zoning district.
All Commissioners agreed it met this criterion.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated he is not sure, based on the second half of the
statement, that it met this criterion.
Councilmember Broussard asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to build a house on the lot
without the variance.
Mr. Hanzal replied the house could not be built without the variance.
Council member Broussard stated it did not render the lot unbuildable. She suggested
looking at where the City ordinance and Rice Creek differ on what is unbuildable.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated basically the lot is unbuildable.
All Commissioners agreed it met the criteria
Criteria 1: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship,
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
Commissioner Love stated what gave him pause, is that not knowing is not an excuse. He
indicated that an individual buys a lot with a vision of what could be built on it. He
indicated they would not know about potential problems until the engineering process
began.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated it gets back to the creek and road determining where the
house could be built.
City Administrator Larson interjected that perhaps there is some variation of this; that
would make it more bearable, such as entrance to the garage or something else that would
reduce the impact.
Page 9 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
Councilmember Broussard gave examples of a variance that was granted and one that
was not as a point of reference for the Planning Commission to consider in making their
decision.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated that when looking at the six lots, it is a line proposed
by this development; however the question is if the Commission did not approve the
variance, did it prevent the development of Lot 6. He stated he would like to see it
developed but did not want to set precedence.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked Mr. Hanzal why the line is proposed at the current
location.
Mr. Hanzal replied that the line is to meet the setback requirements.
Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Hanzal if it is possible to reduce the foundation and put a
sunroom on the side and go up two stories, to match the other houses in the area.
Mr. Hanzal stated there is a recommended three season porch that could be changed to a
four season porch. He stated the house is proposed back as far as it could go.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt stated a variance would still be required.
Commissioner Wood mentioned the smaller foundation would move the house back.
Commissioner Pangell asked if this could be a side lot variance instead. Mr. Hanzal
replied it could be set two feet further back bringing the house 32 feet from the street and
17 feet from the property line.
Commissioner Pangell recapped; stating all members of the Commission agreed on
Criteria two, three, four and five, with number one the only criteria at issue.
Commissioner Fehrenbacher stated the issue is the 20-foot variance request.
City Administrator Larson suggested the Commission could indicate it could live with
"X" amount of variance but not 20 feet because at some point it becomes too much.
Vice-Chair Klennert Hunt asked for specifics on the side setback areas. She indicated
the result is there is no way to satisfy this with a side setback and the conclusion is there
is only one place the house could be built.
Commissioner Wood stated he would like to table this and see what other options Mr.
Hanzal could come up with.
Councilmember Broussard suggested it could be forwarded to the City Council without a
recommendation and with the stated concerns. She stated this would give the Engineer
time to research other options.
Page 10 of 12
City of CentervilIe
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson discouraged this option. He encouraged the Planning
Commission to forward a finding and recommendation.
Mr. Plow, Sr. presented the option of using five-foot side setbacks making the total
distance from house to road 35 feet.
City Administrator Larson stated the hardship is the inability to use the property due to
circumstances outside the control of the property owner.
Commissioner Love stated City Administrator Larson's definition clarified what the
hardship is. He indicated he would be okay with this if the house could be moved back,
but it must decide how far.
Mr. and Mrs. Hanzal stated they did not have a problem with the smaller foundation size
and a ten foot variance.
Motion by Commissioner Wood. seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher. to table
discussion of the request for variance until the March 6. 2007 meetine;. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Sedona Townhomes - Final Plat
City Administrator Larson indicated he had reviewed the final plat for the Sedona
Townhomes and he is unaware of any concerns.
Mr. Keheler addressed the Commission and indicated that the final plat is very similar to
the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Love questioned Councilmember Broussard in regards to Council's
desires for recommendations submitted to them by the Commission.
Councilmember Broussard replied she would discuss this with Council.
City Administrator Larson stated there would be a joint meeting with the Council and
Zoning Commission in the near future. This could be a discussion point at that meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Love. seconded by Commissioner Fehrenbacher. to
recommend Approval of the Sedona Townhomes Final Plat. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Comprehensive Plan Review
a. Consultant Selection Process
Page 11 of 12
City of Centerville
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2007
City Administrator Larson stated that the City Council recommended establishing a
committee that would include two members of the Commission and two members of the
Council to select a consultant.
The Commission appointed Commissioners Love and Wood to serve on this committee,
with Commissioner Pangell acting as an alternate.
Review of the Comprehensive plan was tabled until the March 6,2007 meeting.
V. NEW BUSINESS
None
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. January 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Love requested the removal of "Commissioner Jeff Hanzal" from the list
of members.
Motion by Commissioner Fehrenbacher. seconded by Commissioner Pan2:ell to
approve the Minutes of January 2. 2007. as amended. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimouslv.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Wri2:ht. seconded by Commissioner Wood to Adiourn the
February 6. 2007 Plannin2: Commission meetin2: at 9:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Dianna Wise, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 12 of 12