Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 10, 1995 <br />sidewalk. <br />Garske asked if the area proposed for the garage would <br />be considered the back yard. <br />The City Planner replied that in instances such as <br />this, the neighbor's property is considered in making a <br />rear yard determination. The shared property line <br />would be considered the Novak's side yard. Therefore, <br />the same would be applied to the Leibel property. As a <br />result, at l0 -foot setback would be required for the <br />garage. <br />Garske suggested that if the Novak shed is visible from <br />their porch, then he would have no objection to the <br />addition of the garage on the Leibel property. <br />Leibel reported that the garage would be constructed <br />with similar materials to the house and would have the <br />same type of roof. <br />Carson suggested that this be made a requirement of <br />approval. <br />Schletty pointed out that the Leibel property is well- <br />maintained, and he would accept Mr. Leibel's word that <br />the garage would match the house. <br />Keis agreed that the property is well maintained. <br />Schletty felt that property values were subject to the <br />condition of the neighborhood, and he viewed the <br />proposal as a positive improvement. Schletty also <br />pointed out that the Novak drawing was not done to <br />scale, and the garage will not be as close to the Novak <br />porch as shown. <br />Carson pointed out that the distance from the porch to <br />the garage is no different than a typical backyard. <br />Carson pointed out that the condition of the Leibel <br />property speaks for itself. <br />Mr. Schletty recommended approval of the Conditional <br />Use Permit for a second garage at 124 Twin Lake Blvd. <br />as requested by Mr. Bob Leibel subject to compliance <br />with the recommendations of the City Planner as <br />contained in his report dated August 4, 1995. <br />3 <br />Page 24 <br />