10-28-87 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council October• 28, 1987 Foyt Side Scalze pointed out that with an easement, Mr~. Foyt would still own Yar•d the land the adjacent house is encr•oaching on, and Mr•. Foyt would Setback be r•esponsible for~ the taxes for• that pr•oper•ty. Var•i ance (Cont.) Fahey asked if ther~e was any exposur~e to the City in this matter~ noting that the Building Inspector~ inspected the house on Lot 4, however~, the stakes for• the house wer•e set by the pr•oper~ty owner~s~ engineer, and the Building Inspector~ r~elies on the accur•acy of the stakes. The City Attor•ney stated that fr•om the facts he has seen, the City has no liability in this matter~. Bl esener• asked i f Mr•. Foyt has appr•oached the pr~oper•ty owner~s to the nor•th about adjusting lot lines. Foyt r~eplied that he had, however~, Lot 6 has begun constr•uction, and the owner• of Lot 7 is in the middle of a divor•ce pr•oceeding and cannot sell any of his pr•operty at this time. Foyt also pointed out that he has spent $10,000 in ar•chitectur•al fees having his house designed. LaValle asked the setback being pr~oposed between Mr•. Foyt's house and the house on Lot 4. Hessin r~eplied that ther•e would be a 6 foot setback between the houses, on the south and at least a 16 foot setback between the houses on the nor~th, assuming the house on the north builds r•ight up to the setback line. The Planner• noted that a var•iance on the south has not been r•equested which would be per•missible if an easement is given to the pr~operty owner~ of Lot 4 for• the por•tion of his house that is encr~oaching on Mr•. Foyt's pr~oper•ty. The Planner• also pointed out that Mr•. Foyt would like some dir•ection on the var•iance r~equest befor•e going to the expense of wor•king up a subdivision plan. The Planner• also noted that a 6 foot separ•ation is r~equir•ed between buildings to meet fir~e codes. ~ Scalze noted that the City has denied a pr•oper•ty owner• on Car•la Lane a var•iance to constr•uct a thr•ee-car~ gar•age who claimed that the var~iance was needed to place the gar•age on the pr•oper~ty wher~e pylings had been placed in anticipation of a futur•e gar~age. Foyt pointed out that he has been for•ced to r•equest a var•iance due to the encr~oachment of the adjacent house. Scalze noted that Foyt had the option of down-sizing his house. Fahey asked if Mr•. Foyt was claiming that the City had any liability for~ the encr•oachment. Page -13-