My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-23-1988 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
03-23-1988 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2013 12:42:56 PM
Creation date
6/12/2013 12:41:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />Nov. 26, 1986 <br />Neamy <br />Property <br />Division <br />Agenda <br />Item No. <br />Mrs. Scalze pointed out that the Planning Commission took no action <br />on the Neamy property division. <br />Mr. Tom Moore, representing Mrs. Neamy, reported that he has researched <br />the records and cannot find a case similar to the Neamy property <br />12 division where the City granted a variance. Therefore, Moore is <br />proposing that rather than proceed with the variance request, if the <br />property division is approved, they will remove 4.5 feet from the <br />existing garage in order to meet setback requirements. <br />Moore asked if there was a restriction for how close a driveway could <br />be to a property line. <br />The Planner replied that driveways can be to the edge of a property <br />line. <br />Moore reported that at a later date Mrs. Heamy may construct another <br />garage on the back of her property. <br />Mr. Fahey felt that this would cut up the Neamy property. <br />3lesener suggested that a variance be granted for the side yard <br />setback, rather than requiring Neamy to remove a portion of the <br />existing garage. Blesener felt that removing part of the garage <br />would constitute a hardship. <br />Fahey pointed out that when the Neamy home was built, the City Code <br />only required a 5 -foot setback for a garage. <br />Scalze felt that a precedent would be set if a variance was granted <br />in this case. <br />Collova felt that a hardship exists because the Code was changed <br />after the Neamy home was constructed. <br />The City Attorney pointed out that the Code says the City cannot <br />create a lot that is substandard. <br />The Planner stated that the lot would be substandard in width, and <br />creation of the lot would require a variance. <br />Council reviewed the ordinance. The Attorney pointed out that the <br />ordinance allows the City to exempt some requirements when creating <br />a lot. However, an inadequate setback would require a variance. <br />Fahey agreed that City policy has been to not create lots that <br />would require a variance. <br />The Planner stated that he reviewed the variance requests for the <br />past 4 years and found one case similar to the Neamy request. <br />In that case a property owner was requesting a 5 foot lot width <br />variance, or a 5 foot setback variance. The Council denied the <br />request. <br />Page 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.