Laserfiche WebLink
_ .Mr. William MacNabola, property owner to the :.:east, objected <br />' ~to the fence: location blocking the view from his. house. He <br />stated. that his house ~zas built within 15 .feet of the street in the <br />' front and that a .fence-with a 30' set back would.. be acceptable to <br />him. <br />Motion by Parham, ,seconded by Harty to recommend approval of <br />the. conditional use permit for the fence:;asrequested provided that_ <br />it be no c oser than 30 feet to any curb line. <br />Planning Commission.Recommendation-C7-16-74}: <br />Motion by Bohling, seconded `by Dlugosch to recommend approval <br />of a variance in the event 'that. the Council interprets the Code <br />to require such variance. .Such variance'to be for the swimming <br />pool as requested without .the .need fora re-review of a request <br />for a variance application by the Planning Commission and with the <br />condition that the applicant submit'a revised sketch showing the <br />exact location of the pool and the fence on .the. property. <br />In reply to a question by Harty, Mr, Lappen stated. that he <br />would not remove the .pool any farther to the west then extension_of <br />the line of the house:. <br />Motion carried, 4-0. <br />