09-15-1997 Planning 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 setting for our neighborhood and the entire cir.' would be neglecting your duty, in my opinion. This is not a simple situation, but no one ever purported that ninning a city’ would be simple. The application process in this series of subdivisions has also been flawed, as the city codes clearly require substancial information to be included in all subdinsion applications, not just certain ty pes. The property’ in question at this time, 905. is not a problem property' in any form. There is no flaw or defective situation that needs correcting, so what is the justification for this requested partition. The desired use of Lot 13 and maintanance of the view can be accomplished with covenants and easements rather than a subdivision. Apparently the removal of Lot 13 from the rest of 905 is far more likely to create a problem, in hardco^'er and setback, requirements for the 905 house, than to correct any problem or hardship. It is also my opinion th.at the proposed co^■cnants of allow ing no dockage or structures to be built at any' future time on Lot 13 is not preser.'ing the \ aiue of the land, in this valuable, desirable, and highly usable prime water frontage. In luy opinion, the Lot 13 shoreline is one of the finest viewing, swimming, and water sports sites on the entire lake. wHiat provision has been made tor access to the site, is it clearly stated in the application? Both the City Codes and CMP require that the care and concern in making the decision shall increase relative to the property’s proximity to a lake or wetlands. Being that this property is very nearly surrounded by the lake, it should rccei’ c the highest degree of scrutiny possible The CMP in section 1-3 defines views of the lakeshore as invaluable property rights. As our \iew is over the property in question, we have concerns over a number of maple trees which have been planted by Conley Brooks Jr. in the last ye-r or ^vo which, if allowed to reach maiurity . will adversely afreet the laL-devv of the owners of 905. 1055. and our property. I have discussed this w ith Conley Brooks Jr. and he is apparently planning to transplant them to his portion of the 1045 property which w ould solve this problem, but I would hke to see the matter addressed as an issue in this subdivision reque.st so that it is clearly taken care of, as it will have a major impact on neighbonng properties’ views. It is worth remembering that given the life spun of a tree, you must also consider the interests and wishes of flitiirc property ow ners as w ell as the current owners of each property. Another reason w e consider Lot 13 to be of importance t(? us is its afreet on our lake access. Because of water currents and sand deposits resulting from tliem, the waterw ay providing our access to the rest of the lake has in