Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 23, 1995 <br />Novak pointed out that a garage cannot be moved and is <br />a permanent structure. Novak felt looking at the side <br />of the garage would be like looking at a billboard. <br />Novak stated that he was asking for consideration of <br />his position. Novak believes the garage will devalue <br />his property when he sells it. <br />Scalze pointed out the Leibel house does not face the <br />other direction; therefore, that was not an argument <br />which could be considered. <br />There was no one else from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by LaValle, the public <br />hearing was closed. <br />The City Attorney suggested that the Council may want <br />to check the building permit file relative to <br />determination of a front yard when the Leibel's pulled <br />their building permit. <br />Fahey felt the area proposed for the garage was <br />obviously the Leibel's front yard. Fahey agreed that <br />the garage would impact and depreciate the Novak's <br />property value. <br />The City Planner stated that the Code prohibits an <br />detached accessory building in the front yard. <br />Morelan asked the reason for that. <br />The Planner replied that it was to protect the required <br />30-foot front yard setback from the street. <br />Leibel pointed out the Novak's have an accessory <br />building near where he is proposing to place his. <br />Novak replied that he has an 8 by 12 storage shed which <br />he can move to meet the 10 foot setback requirement. <br />Novak indicated that he was not aware there was a <br />setback requirement for a storage garage of this <br />nature. <br />Morelan pointed out that Leibel must look out his front <br />window at this storage shed. <br />Scalze moved denial of the CUP as requested by Mr. <br />Leibel. Motion was seconded by Fahey. <br />Pedersen suggested that if the Council deny this <br />8 <br />