My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-13-95 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
09-13-95 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:37:05 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTII~ffiII2 13, 1995 <br />street right-of-way and the front of the building <br />structure. The required front yard is the first 30 <br />feet from the street right-of-way. Fahey stated that <br />what is not clear to him from his review is whether a <br />setback is measured from the lot line or the building <br />line. However, it appears appropriate to measure <br />setback requirements from the lot line. Therefore, <br />placement of the Leibel home is O.K., and the accessory <br />building being proposed would be outside of the <br />required front yard. Fahey also pointed out that the <br />ordinance stated that except for farm buildings, <br />accessory buildinqs cannot be placed within the <br />required yard, and within l0 feet of the side or rear <br />lot line. <br />Fahey pointed out that this situation is unique since a <br />front lot line abuts a rear lot line. Fahey also <br />pointed out that Council Members Pedersen and Morelan <br />took the position at the last meeting that if the <br />Novak's would be allowed to construct an accessory <br />building 10 feet from the shared lot line, then Leibel <br />should have the same right. Fahey stated that he did <br />not believe the CUP would be an issue if the Novak's <br />had a 70 or 80 feet of backyard. Fahey again stated <br />that the Novak property appears to be overbuilt, and he <br />can understand their desire not to have their view <br />blocked out. <br />Novak did not feel he should be penalized in this <br />situation because he received a variance in order to <br />construct his home. Novak reported that he could have <br />placed his home in another manner on the lot, but <br />sought the variance in order to save some trees. Novak <br />pointed out that the Leibel's were granted a variance <br />in order to build a house on a property with inadequate <br />frontage on a public street. <br />Fahey pointed out that there cannot be two front <br />property lines for the Leibel property, and the <br />required front yard begins at the right-of-way line for <br />Twin Lake Blvd. Fahey stated that while it was not <br />fair to penalize Novak because he overbuilt his lot, it <br />was also not fair to deprive the Leibel's from building <br />an accessory building in an area they have acaess to. <br />Fahey felt that equity favors allowing the Leibel~s to <br />building the garage. Fahey pointed out that Leibel's <br />would be allowed to fence the area without any <br />approvals of the City Council. The City can also <br />require that trees or shrubs be planted to screen the <br />garage from the Novak property. <br />Novak agreed that he has a small backyard, and felt <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.