10-13-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

examining all the subdivisions of these properties simultaneously. To grant these subdivisions without a long hard look at the precedent that you will be settine for our neiahborhood and the entire cir.- would be neglecting your duty,'in my opinion. This is not a simple situation, but no one ever purported that ninnins a city would be simple. The applicaiion process in this series of subdivisions has aiso oeen flav\ eo, as the cit>- codes clearly require substancial infoiniation to be included in all subdivision applications, not just certain t>'pes. The property in question at this time, 905. is not a problem propertv- m anv form. There is no Qaw or defective situation that needs correcting, so what is the justification for this requested partition. The desired use ot Lo 13 and maintanance of the view can be accomplished with covenants and easements rather than a subdivision. Apparently the removal ot Lot l o trom the rest of 905 is far more likely to create a problem, in hardcover and .setback requirements for the 905 house, than to correct any procieni or hardship. It is also my opinion that the proposed co^■c•nant.s ot allowing no docka2e or structures to be built at any fuUire time on Lot io is not presen-ina the value of the land, in this valuable, desirable, and highl> usable prhne wuter trontage. In my opinion, the Lot 13 shoreline is one o the finest viewing, swimming, and water sports sites on the-entire lake. vv nai provision has been made tor access to the site, is it clearh stale m t le application-;* Both the Circ Codes and CMP require that the care ana concern in making the decision shall increase relative to the propert> s P^oximiU jo a lake or w’eilands. Being that this propert>- is very nearh surroundeu b> me lake, it should rccch c the highest degree of scrutiny pos.siblc ^ The CMP in section 1-3 defines views of the lakeshore as mvaiuable propertv rishts. As our view is over the propert>- in question, we have concerns over a number of maple trees which have been planted by Conle> Brooks Jr. in the last > ear or nvo w hich, if allowed to reach maiurit> . wui adversely affect the lakeview of the owners of 905. 1055. and our property. 1 have discussed this with Conley Brooks Jr. and he is apparently planning to transplant them to his portion of the 1045 propert>' which would solve this problem, but I w ould like to see the matter addressed as an issue in tins subdivision request so that it is clearly taken care of, as it will have a major impact on neighbonng properties' views. It is worth remembemig that given the life span of a tree, vou must also consider the interests and wishes o ftmire propertv- owners as well as the current owners of each propertv-. Another reason we consider Lot 13 to be of importance to us is its ailect on our lake access. Because of water cuiTCuts and sand deposits resulting from them, the waterway providing our access to the rest of the lake has m