02-28-1977 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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