Laserfiche WebLink
[ <br />^NO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 28, 1977 Page 19 <br />If the City denies Nr. Petersen's variance <br />request, he will be stuck with a piece of property <br />^ich is absolutely useless to him. He cannot <br />build on it or put it to any productive use. <br />The property will be sterile and condemned as a <br />practical matter. <br />LETTER - GARY PETERSEN <br />3545 Ivy Place <br />(Continued) <br />It has been suggested that Mr. Petersen purchase <br />the adjoining property and combine both properties <br />into one big lot. While this may sound like a <br />good solution, it is extremely impractical and <br />perhaps inqpossible. The adjacent property is <br />tax forfeited and will be auctioned off later <br />this summer. The back taxes alone are over <br />$10,000 and one cannot predict what will be bid <br />for the property over and above the back taxes. <br />Moreover, there are redemption rights to be <br />considered, as well as the first refusal rights <br />of the City and the problems of obtaining clear <br />title. Mr. Petersen cannot afford an additional <br />$10,000 plus for this land or the additional <br />time before he can get clear title. This property <br />is not readily available now and may never be <br />available for purchase. <br />As stated earlier, the property had been platted <br />over 80 years before the zoning restrictions were <br />adopted. The property is the largest lot in the <br />subdivision and is the only lot which is not <br />developed. Prior to 1967, Mr. Petersen's predecessor <br />in title could have built a house on the property <br />and there would have been no restrictions in the <br />sale of the dwelling and land to Mr. Petersen. <br />Should Mr. Petersen be penalized for the failure <br />of his predecessor in title to build on the property? <br />The uniqueness of the property is also demonstrated <br />by the fact that the property has been assessed <br />for sewer and water. Implicit in an assessment <br />of this nature is a finding that the lot is build- <br />able. If the lot is unbuildable, the assessment <br />is invalid. <br />Of primary concern in the granting or denial of <br />any variance, aside from the hardship to the owner, <br />is the interest of the City. Factors to consider <br />in analyzing the City's interest are the welfare <br />of the conommity and the City's planning objectives. <br />The %#elfare of the community can only be enhanced <br />by allowing Mr. Petersen his variance. To deny <br />the variance would be to sterilize the property. <br />Since the property would be unbuildable, taxes and <br />special assessments would be unpaid. If the variance <br />is granted, a dwelling would be placed on the property <br />and the taxes and special assessments would be paid.(Continued)