CCMIN081589 - Laserfiche WebLink

255 Mr. Swift mentioned that the Code states that the action of the Board of Adjustment becomes effective 15 days after its approval or the day after the next City Council meeting. What is generally done when those letters are sent out is to take a 15-day time period so that a specific date is set up. In this case, however, the date became wrong when the City Council skipped a meeting; the letter should have set the day after the Council meeting as the legal date of effectivity. He apologized for the error made. Mr. Butler explained that variances are granted not on whether the neighbors agree or disagree with the proposal but if there is something unique about the property, in relation to most places in the area, to warrant an exception from normal setback requirements. Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Collins what the elevation difference was between his property and those of the neighbors. Mr. Collins replied that his was the second highest property and that there were three that were extremely low. He explained that moving the trellis closer to the house would provide no privacy as the neighbors would be looking into one another's windows. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Brandes stated that certain findings have to be made to approve a variance: First, that there are special circumstances unique to the site; second, that the proposal will not constitute a grant of special privilege; and third, that the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding area are not jeopardized by the request. He pointed out that the staff report indicated that these findings could not be made and added that he concurred with the dissenting vote in the Board of Adjustment that those findings could not be met. Mr. Butler stated that although there was no problem with the design, he believed the second requirement could not be met. Mr. Mercer pointed out that there were unusual elevations in the properties in question and that the applicant's proposal is not something unattractive but would in fact improve the neighbors' properties. He added that he would like to see more privacy in town, and this is what the applicant is trying to provide for himself and his neighbors. Mr. Tarver indicated that he did not find anything wrong with the proposal. Mr. Butler commented that if there is a need to enhance privacy in the City, the Council should probably look at the setback requirements and change them. -10- 8-15-89