My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-25-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
09-25-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:50:18 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:43 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.
/
22
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
MINi]TES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEPSBER 25, 1996 <br />enjoyed by other properties in the same district refers <br />to all property owners in the R-1 Zoning District. <br />Fahey indicated if a variance is granted to this lot, <br />the City must be prepared to grant the same <br />consideration to everyone else in the City so they can <br />build porches which encroach into the required back <br />yard. <br />Fahey asked about the variance granted for the Zietlow <br />property on old County Road C. <br />The City Planner reported that while he does not know <br />the details of the Zietlow variance, it appears the <br />Council granted a variance so Mr. Zietlow could <br />construct a deck and porch which encroaches into the <br />rear yard setback. Approval of the variance was based <br />on the fact that the house was placed on the lot in <br />such a manner as to conform to the setbacks of the <br />other homes in the area. The Building Inspector felt <br />that was adequate justification to grant the variance. <br />The Planner pointed out the Jebens house was placed in <br />full conformance to the Code. The issue is whether the <br />property was able to be put to reasonable use. <br />LaValle reported that he looked at the Jebens property <br />and the back yard drops off. LaValle pointed out the <br />variance request only involves the construction of <br />three walls and a roof on the existing deck. The <br />adjacent property owner does not object to the <br />variance. <br />Scalze pointed out that if Jebens wanted to put a porch <br />on his house at the time it was first constructed, it <br />would not have been allowed if it encroached into the <br />rear yard setback. <br />LaValle did not feel the porch would impact anyone. <br />Fahey pointed out if everyone constructed a house with <br />a deck which encroaches into the rear yard setback, and <br />then later enclosed the deck, property owners would be <br />getting indirectly what they could not get directly. <br />Scalze pointed out that if the City approves a porch <br />within the 30 foot setback, this would have to be <br />allowed for everyone requesting it. Scalze felt Jebens <br />was asking for a special privilege. Scalze stated that <br />if the City feels the porch should be approved, then <br />the Code should be amended to allow this for everyone. <br />There was no one from the general public present <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.