03/19/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16v CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1975 LANDS OF OVERSTREET (cont'd City Manager Robert Crowe summarized actions taken by the Variance Planning Commission at their last meeting regarding this application. and the denial of the Commission of the request for a variance from the setback requirements for a garage -workshop. Mr. and Mrs. Scott Overstreet, applicants, presented view graphs of their property, and addressed Council concerning the reasons why they were requesting exemption from the setback requirements, and appealing the decision of the Variance & Permit Commission, who thought a lot line change would be better than granting a variance. Mr. and Mrs. Overstreet stated that a lot line change would cost them $2,000 or more; that no neighbors were protesting the granting of the variance; that because they themselves owned the closest lots, that it would be their property which would be devalued, which they did not think would occur. They explained why the request was being made, in that a mature oak tree would have to be destroyed and more gradinq done if they had to adhere to the setback requirements, and explained why this location was best suited to their needs. Cornissioner Donald Spencer, representing the Planning Commission, said he had not been present for this particular public hearing, and could not, therefore, speak as representing the Variance & Permit Commission; far however, as a Planning Commissioner, he stated that he agreed with the applicants regarding their request. Mr. Larry Steiner, Architect for the applicants, addressed Council concerning the placement of the building at this site and the applicant's reluctance to remove mature trees, and the reasons the garage -workshop planned was the size indicated. Councilwoman Miller stated that she had made a trip to the property, and before seeing it was in opposition to the granting of this request; however, when she had seen the property, she was inclined to view the request with favor since the variance would not disturb any neighbor, and would disturb the environment the least. She suggested that this matter might be put over to another meeting to allow Council to make a field trip to the site. Discussion ensued between the applicants, their Architect, and Council members concerning the unique qualities of the property in question, the driveway easement for their Lot #3, and the setback requirements of the Town. Councilman Cheney moved that this appeal be put over until the next Council meeting on April 2nd to allow the applicants time to present Council with another alternative for the proposed garage -workshop, and t5e requ�-�st for � varianc, for t'i�� setback requirements for the back yard granted by the Variance A Permit Commission be upheld. Councilman McReynolds seconded the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: -2-