My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-09-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
10-09-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:50:42 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:46 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.
/
27
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 />~CTOBER 9, 1996 <br />which destroyed one of the plow trucks. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 96-10-254 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF <br />A PLOW TRUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,900 AS RECOMMENDED BY <br />THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, LaValle, Pedersen, Morelan, Fahey. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />DECK The Council reviewed the survey information provided <br />CONVERSIONS by staff regarding how surrounding cities address the <br />TO PORCHES conversion of decks which encroach into the required <br />setback into porches. Fahey noted that it appears <br />Little Canada's ordinance is consistent with those of <br />neighboring cities. The only exception is Maplewood <br />which allows the conversion by Conditional Use Permit <br />rather than Variance. Maplewood also determined the <br />required rear yard setback based on 200 of the lot <br />depth. Fahey noted that some of the cities consider a <br />porch to be living space and these cities are more <br />restrictive setbacks for living space. <br />David Jebens, 812 Aspen Circle, pointed out that of the <br />six cities surveyed, three have ordinances similar to <br />Little Canada's while three do not. Jebens pointed out <br />the fact that he could construct a free-standing porch <br />within the required rear yard setback without a <br />variance. It is only because the porch would be <br />attached to the house that a variance would be <br />necessary. <br />Fahey pointed out that Little Canada's ordinance is <br />already more liberal than most of the surrounding <br />cities because the Little Canada allows decks to <br />encroach within the required setback. Fahey <br />acknowledged that the CUP process is easier than the <br />Variance process since a hardship must be proven in the <br />in order to grant a Variance. With a CUP, the Council <br />can set conditions on the approval. Fahey asked the <br />Council if they were interested in using the CUP <br />process rather than the Variance process in these <br />instances. <br />Morelan felt the Variance process forced the Council to <br />catagorize things as either black or white. Morelan <br />felt this was a very difficult thing to do. Generally <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.