Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTII'~BER 13, 1995 <br />lot situation. That is not what exists here. Morelan <br />reported he looked at the intent of the Code to see why <br />it was written the way it was. Morelan felt that the <br />intent of the Code in requiring a 30 foot front yard <br />was to protect the view of the street. The location of <br />the garage as proposed by Leibel would not impact the <br />street. The Code was also written to protect adjacent <br />property owners. Morelan pointed out that if <br />everything was the same and the Leibel's accessed their <br />property from the south, there would be no question <br />that the area was their back yard, and the garage <br />location would meet Code. Morelan also felt that what <br />is right for one property owner should be right for <br />another. That is, the Novak's would be allowed to <br />construct a garage 10 feet from this property line, <br />therefore, Leibel should have the same right. In <br />response to the devaluation argument, Morelan stated <br />that the two letters from realtors submitted by Novak <br />indicated that the presence of the garage may limit the <br />amount of people who would be interested in buying the <br />property. Morelan pointed out that most realtors will <br />agree that a swimming pool may limit the number of <br />potential buyers. The garage may be a hinderance, but <br />it certainly does not devalue the property. Morelan <br />sympathized with the Novak's, but felt not granting the <br />request would give the Novak~s undue favor. <br />Novak stated that he would request the Council table <br />action on this matter so he can have his attorney <br />present. <br />Fahey felt that an attorney representing the Novak's <br />would find a way to argue to support Novak's position., <br />and he was sure an attorney representing the Leibel's <br />could support their position. Fahey stated that his <br />reading of the ordinances does not support the Novak <br />position. Therefore, felt the Council should get on <br />with the matter. <br />Scalze asked the City Attorney if the Code was <br />ambiguous. <br />The City Attorney replied that the Code was not a model <br />of clarity in this case. <br />Novak pointed out that he is a taxpayer, has been a <br />good citizen, and has some rights. Novak asked that <br />the Council at least give him a chance to further argue <br />his case. Novak felt there was some favoritism toward <br />the Leibel's. He pointed out that the Leibel's were <br />granted a variance in order to build where they did. <br />Property owners in the area argued against the variance <br />6 <br />