04-12-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lirgcr property owners* sole and great iiiunctuiy loss? Even if some ownew are, at limes, unfairly prevented from maximizing Uieii use and value, some later owner will surely do so. Economic forces will eventually prevail and make this change reality. So why penalize only the current property owners? llie City will do all property owners and residents a great favor to acknowtedge reality and Uic inevitability of economic forces which will cause certain change. I1te City should work to optimally guide this change, rather thait attempt to deny and prevent it with oitificial and failing zoning requirements. The ('ify should strive to facilitate all property owners attempting to reasonably maximize their value and use of their piopc^rtics and should modify City ccNks to reflect reality. 1 favor the granting of the li>l size variance to the owners of the 1070 property. Tho owners arc not proposing any subdivi.sion, only tlie ability Co rebuild a single house where a house had already been, and rebuild on exactly the same lot as before. The 1070 fHoprrty actually has much more dry land than many (most) of the surrounding properties. Ihc previous Ixjwry home was adet)ualcly spaced iTom the aunroitnding homes, with grrnlcr se|ieratioii from the larger properties u» the east TTii* will lie maiiiCainetl under the proposer! plan Ihe building plans appear to pn>posc a very attractive and appropriate house on the site. The 1070 property luis city scwci service wliich did not exist when the two acre minimum and various setbacks wcic impo.sed many years ago. Ihc pro|XJrty mljoiiiing immcilialcly to the west of 1070 is on a much smaller ti>Ul di7 land area than the protrosed 1070 plan. The proposed plan does not appear to adv-raely alfect the previous sc|icfation and spacing from the property lo the west The property to the vwrst should not sufTcr any ill alTects. Tha property iiiunediatcly across the street, to the south, has had a dramatic hardcover rctiuction in IWH from the complete removal of the former Skarp home and nssoemted hardciivcr. Tluit pio|)rrty is in the pfoccss of lidng absorbed into the two sepemte adjoining properties on either side of the Former Skarp pniperty. Tbe result will he decreased demiity lo the sou*h of 1070. Ilus also ctianges tlie situation Irom thirty some years ago when Uic two acre minimum vms enacted. Hie 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. Tliat open space far exceeds the intended effect of the two acre minimum. This alone should cause the City la view the application of the two acre minimum differently (as less necessary) when applied to any properties surrounding this large protected open land which provides tremendous filtering capacity for any runoff and provides an obvious total lack of any nearby hardcover on this marsh land. The owner of the 1070 properly should be allowed to utilize that property lo the maximum compatible and similar value that all of the arca'.s smaller properties are already fully enjoying. The profKwcd 1070 use is very compatible with and similar to the current use and density of the great majority of surrounding |iropcrtics fhis use as proposed slxiuld not harm anyone or cause any problems. I hope this variance will be granted and look forward lo the new addition of a 1070 house lo our neighborhood Ibis will be an obvious liencfit to all of Ihc surrounding property owners who will l*nefit from this additional investment in and improvement lo the 1070 property. This continuing use as a single family residential property (with exactly the same lot dimensions and dry surface) is the higliest compatible use of. and value of the 1070 pruperty. Thank you fur the uj»^x)rtumly lo express my views on this variance request. Sincerely, Robert Floyd r. 10