1993-05-04 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

future. However, during the March 1st. meeting, maps were brought out that showed that this lot is the only one that cannot be subdivided in accordance with the ordinance. In addition a Commission member suggested that the few other people who own Lakeshore land could be contacted to see if they would feel our proposed variances confer special privileges. We would be happy to follow up on this if it would further clarify this standard for the Commission. We believe that everyone on the Commisssion agreed that our variances conform to the fourth Standard (65.03 -4) in that they do not impair light , air or property value of the surrounding property owners. In addition we've confirmed with the Police Chief and Fire Chief that public health and safety is not impaired with our proposed variances. We can understand the caution the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking with our Variances. These are not easy decisions to make. In the remainder of our letter we would like to address some concems we heard voiced during the extended March 1st Hearing and Commission Meeting. No one appeared at the hearing to object or even question our intentions for these variances. In fact, one week prior to the hearing we visited all the neighbors within 300 feet of our lot (including Father Wolters of St. Genevieve's), showed them our proposed lot split and the proposed location of our houses (see attachment 111). Not one person objected to it and most were happy to see two homes proposed for this lot. We know there were concems expressed by the Commission that there are so many (6) variances. However, after listening to the discussion we feel that all six can be distilled down to two basic issues; 1. forming a lot with no street access and 2. forming two lots whose widths (80 ft) are below the 100 ft. minimum. The first issue is easily addressed by one party granting a permanent easement for a driveway to the other party. This is what we are proposing and both the Police and Fire Chiefs see no problems with this approach and in fact this arrangement has been done in other situations within the city of Centerville. The second issue (100 ft minimum) is the controversial one and we feel the major concem of the Commission is the precedence this action may set for others- In fact it was mentioned thatthe city lawyer recommended denial of our • variances based on the precedence it may establish. There is no obvious answer to this issue. However from our standpoint we feel this lot is a unique situation in that it is a lake lot (traditionally narrower than an off- the -lake lot) and is the last one in the city with sufficient square footage to subdivide but not sufficient width. Our intentions always have and continue to be -to build our homes on Centerville Lake. Naturally we would like to build two single family homes on their own lots. But if this is not possible we would no doubt build twin homes or town homes on the single lot. We feel it would be better and in keeping with the present neighborhood to build two separate single family homes. We feel that the cost of the lot, it's size and the surrounding homes support a two family home usage rather than one large single family dwelling.