06-28-1993 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3) The City Council should use the same standards of hardship in the case of Jack Remien's lot ;is they do in all variances issued. In this case, the property to the north, prior to the Bielkc's ownership, created the current situation by selling ott the lot as a buildable lot, one which has more value than a non-buildable lot. And through the next ownerships, from Tuttle to Smith to Mer^z and then to Mr Remicn, this lot was sold as a buildable lot always commanding a higher price than if it were not buildable. The ordinances say that a hardship exists when the situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and not created by the landowner. Mr Remien did not create this situation, but in fact, the lot to the north which is currently the Bielke residence originally created this situation -- it is ironic that this property is the very one fighting it. 4) The Bielkes should not receive the financial reward for having a non-buildable lot next to their property. The Bielkes purchased their property with notice that a variance had previously been given. Even while the Bielkes owned their property, two such variances were given; it is thus evident that the price that the Bielkes paid for their property reflected the buildable status of the Remien lot. Meanwhile, the price paid by the Remiens for their lot reflected the value of a buildable lot. By reversing the buildable status of the Remien lot, the City Council would unjustly enrich the Bielkes at the expense of the Remiens. I \^vuld like to address issur< raised by neighborhood residents: SOIL EROSION - Jay Richardson, who lives two properties to the north, cited soil erosion as a problem in the area. The hill on Mr Richardson ’s property is located 150- 200 feet from the Remien property, and is adjacent to the Bielke property to the nor^. As you move south away from the Richardson property and nearer the Remien lot, the incline becomes much less steep. As a matter of fact, the Bielkes have stated in the fact sheet they show potential buyers of their home that there has not been a soil problem on their property (copy enclosed). At their April 19 meeting, we gave the City Planners photographs taken of the hill on the Remien property. The photographs show no evident erosion problem. In addition, our home w >uld be pt)sitioned 55-60 feet behind the hill. and would not disturb it. TRAFFIC - Although traffic is a concern, the marginal increase in traffic caused by one home will be insignificant. LOCALITY CHARACTERISTICS - l*he objection that granting a variance for this pro[)erty would alter the. essential characteristics of the IcKality is not justified. There are many substandard lots in the area. Immediately soulli of the Remien property are two properties wh?';h are each 55 feet wide. Immediately north of the Bielke properly is a 6()-foot lot, similar to the Remien property size. As you Icxik at this neighborhood, there is a mixture of homes, some are newer and some are older. In many cases, our potential home would be equal to. or ?n improvement to the area. I ve attached a copy of our cv'iicepiual home plans for you; review. i