04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m Unar property owneiViole and great monetaiy loss? Even if some owners are, at times, unfairly prevented from maximiang their use and value, some later owner will surely do so. liconomic facra will eventuaUy prevail and make thU ciiange reality. So why penalize only the current property owners? ... . r • TTie City will do all property owners and residents a great favor to ackmwtedce reality and the inevitabili^ of economic forces which will cause certain change- "nre City should work to optimally guide this change, rather than attempt to deny and prevent it with artificial and failing aonuig requirements. llte City should strive to faciUtate all property ow^ attempting to reasonably maximize their value and use of their properties and should modiQr Ci.ycodes to reflect reality. I favor the granting of the lot size vtnance to the owners nf the 1070 property. The owncn are not proposing any subdivision, only the ability to rebuild a single house where a house had already been, and rebuild on exactly the same lot as before. .... / r The 1070 property actually has much more dry land than many (most} oi the surrounding pnifiertics. The previous Lowry home wu adequately spaced fiom thr .nunumdiiiB homes, with greater seperation from die larger properties to the eiL 1. This will he maintaiiiod under the proposed plan. The building plans mipcar to propose > very attractive and appropriate house on the site. The 1070 property has city sewer service which did not exist when the two acre minimum and various setbacks were imposed iiiroy years at>o. The property adioining inunediately to the west of 1070 is on a much smaller total dry land tica than Oie pro|Hise*l 1 070 plan. The proposed plan docs not appear to adversely affect the previous seperation and spacing from the property to tlie west llie property to the west should not suffer any ill affects. The property immeiliatcly across die street, to the south, has had a dreinatic hardcover reduction in 1998 from the complete removal of the former Skaip home and associated hardcover. That property is in the proceu of being absorbed into the two seperate adjoining properties on either side of the Fonner Skaip fwoperty. The result vvill be decreased density to the south of 1070. This .Ian change* the sihialion from thirty some yeus ago when the two acre minimum was enacted. f.9 ♦ The protected marsh immediately to the north of and adjoining the 1070 property provides a very obvious limit to the future density of development that can possibly occur in this area. That open space far exceeds the intended effect of the two acre minimum. This alone ^ould cause the City to view the application of the two acre minimum differently (as less necessary) when applied to any properties surrounding this large protected open land wfiich provides tremendous filtering capacity for any ninofr and provides an obvious total lack of any nearby hardcover on this marsh land. The owner of the 1070 property should be allowed to utilize that property to the maximum compatible and similar v&lue that all of the area's smaller properties are already fully enjoying. The proposed 1 070 use is very compatible with and similar Co the current use and density of the majority of suaounding properties. This use as proposed should not harm anyone or cause any problems. I hope this variance will be granted and look forward to the new addition of a 1070 house to our neighborhood. This will be an obvious benefit to all of the surrounding property owners who will benefit from this additional investment in and improvement to the 1 070 property. This continuing use as a single family rrsidcnlihl property (with exactly the same lot dimensions and dry surf ace) is the highest compatible use of, and value of the 1 070 property. Thank you fur the opportunity to express my views on this variance request Since :ly. Kohert Floyd P. 10