Laserfiche WebLink
B��Iai�.JYY�lss n, JUL 'C RECD <br /> >s46 7 &ds <br /> aafft� " ,ssays <br /> 612 407=4906' <br /> July 29, 1996 <br /> Dear Planning and Zoning Committee: <br /> We have thought about the discussion at the P & Z Public Hearing and have two <br /> comments: <br /> 1. HILL: We considered putting the four foot fence on a two foot (high) hill to raise the height of <br /> the fence. We do not think it would accomplish our objective of keeping the neighborhood <br /> children out, i.e., they would stand on the hill and be able to climb over the four feet. <br /> Furthermore, it would be unattractive. <br /> 2. CHAIN LINK FENCE: A chain link fence would not afford us privacy nor would it be attractive. <br /> That's the kind of fence that one might think of in an industrial area. With the wood fence, we <br /> would have a decorative two feet of lattice on the top of the four feet solid. Also, we could <br /> decorate both sides of the fence with bird houses and flower planters. <br /> BUREAUCRACY: One of the reasons Centerville appealed to us was our assumption that <br /> citizens would have a more neighborly relationship with the local government; where the <br /> citizens would be more involved in their local government and the city would exercise their <br /> ability to assess situations and regulations based on the individual situation. We <br /> anticipated the "red tape" of a smaller city would be simplified, if not eliminated. We <br /> applied for this variance on May 17th. <br /> REGULATIONS: In our opinion, the regulation should be amended to allow corner lots to <br /> have a standard six (6) foot fence as long as it does not obstruct a clear view traffic at the <br /> intersection. <br /> We do not think it is too much for a resident to be able to have a small degree of <br /> privacy and security in their own backyard, whether they are located on a corner or not. <br /> IF REQUEST IS DENIED: <br /> 1. VARIABLE HEIGHTS: We will probably erect the six foot wood fence (4' solid topped <br /> with 2' lattice) on the West and South side of our backyard. On the East side (Peterson <br /> Trail) we would erect the four foot solid wood fence (without the decorative lattice on <br /> top). Why wouldn't the city approve a variance for the two feet decorative lattice? <br /> 2. SWIMMING POOL: We are considering the idea of completely changing the focus in <br /> our backyard to a below ground swimming pool with beach chairs, etc. However, our <br /> first choice is the "Victorian" gardens with fish ponds and water falls. If our request is <br /> denied, we would like to know what the requirements on a fence enclosing a swimming <br /> pool are? <br /> 3. COUNCIL MEETING: If our request for a variance is denied, may we attend the Council <br /> Meeting to object to the P & Z's recommendation? <br /> We have enclosed a small statement of support our neighbor's who are located on each <br /> side of our backyard. We hope the decision of the Planning and Zoning Committee will be <br /> to recommend that our request for a variance be approved forthwith. <br /> Thank you for your assistance. <br /> Mari and`Roger ?rlson <br />