|
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Counci lman Hamel asked from whic,hside of the walk the lS:"'foot setback would start. '
<br />Mr. Haxton answered that.it would start from the house side, tilat' actuall~the property
<br />line woul~ be about a foot from the ,walk so that'actual setback 'from the sidewalk' would
<br />.. a'mount to about' 16 feet. In response to Councilman Haws, he' said the setback for the
<br />. garage is at least the minimum (15 feet), otherwise it would not have been permitted
<br />to be completed at the time of constru.ction and building inspection.
<br />
<br />Mr. Rushby called attention to another iencein 'the neighborhood, that appeared,~o be
<br />in violation and described its location. Mr. Haxton expl:ained that it had been. con-
<br />structed prior to adoption of the present code and was thqreforc a nonconforming use.
<br />He added tha t there was another in the area in violation uPon which action .wpuld soon
<br />be taken. Mr. Haws pointed out that the code had to be enforced equally-otherwise a
<br />variety of fences in the community would result.
<br />
<br />Mr. Petzold commented on tile Zoning Board meeting and said,he t.~ought it had been
<br />conducted in a poor manner. Mr. Haws appreciated the concern expressed and suggested
<br />the best procedure would be to address those concerns to the city manager. He said
<br />that,regardless of the canduct of the Zoning Boardmeetiny, everyone particip~ting
<br />in this nearing would be treated fairly and any decisi,on would be based, on the facts
<br />as presented in the record and through testimony received.
<br />
<br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimQny presented.
<br />
<br />Councilman Hamel said he thought there could have been a personality conflict, it
<br />would depend upon how a matter was presented. However, he 'said that the fence
<br />knowingly had been constructed in violation of the code and that it should either be
<br />, relocated at the proper setback or modified to the height required by the code (30").
<br />
<br />Councilman Haws asked what choices the Schaafs' had. M~. Haxton said the fence could
<br />be moved back to the setback line or could be lowered to 30".
<br />
<br />A Recommendation: Unanimous vote to uphold past Zoning Board
<br />. ~tions and deny the appeal~
<br />
<br />
<br />Councilman Haws hC'r!,:d 'f;at the i1fJFr'lla.,': ,.,;ulri:''':lIvly witt, !f/,,' '-'('c,isir;Il'd.;lr1 noted the
<br />matter of fence var,i,lIlCf'S w'as elL? 1\.ll~C:" ,',(' h'':>U1.<! like to sc'" ".!rir','S::',J! }',I U~L~Council.
<br />Mr. (faxtOn noted thilr t,'lcre i,ac' l>,?cn :;cme rJiscu<;slons ill. :::tdf~' 1,'." { :.;j th r(',;Jrd to
<br />possitJ1e n1odification:: to ft:nc~ rey,datiops, yard setbacks" COlIlL'r 'lot.<;, etl:.
<br />
<br />Richard Schaaf expressed dissatisfaction with the dcci!don, sd1jiny tho regulations
<br />should be r.J.:Jde accordin<j to Jo.'h.:Jt people in a given arcadc..;ircd. Nr. Haws explained
<br />that a particular ,r.ubdi\,jsion could not be. eXt..mpted from cnd~.J provisions. (ft' said he
<br />understood the concerns expressed but the only proper cour.cOo of action was to abide
<br />by the code or change it, and that the appeal had been denied.
<br />, Conon
<br />10/22/75
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the report. Motion Approve
<br />carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />At the conclusion of the regular agenda, Mr, Schaaf, 2080 Churchill Street, asked if
<br />there was anything further could be said to change the decision on this appeal.
<br />
<br />Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel that motion to deny the appeal
<br />be reconsidered.
<br />
<br />Upon Councilman Murray's' inquiry as to why it should be reconsidered, Mr., Bradley
<br />said he thought that in the hasty vote on the consent calendar, serious concern on
<br />this matter may not have been expressed. He thought'theissue really had never been
<br />e made clear.to the Council, and although the panel report had been.distributed, he said-,
<br />he would l1ke to hear what actually happened. He thought there mlght be some useful
<br />purpose in allowing Mr. Schaaf the opportunity to convince; the total'Council on the
<br />fence issue. ' ,
<br />
<br />
<br />S"?i 10/27/75- 13
<br />
|