7.7. SR 08-15-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG-12-94 FRI 10:39 ROBT MILLER LAW OFFICE P.03 . Honorable Mayor and council Members August 12, 1994 Pag(~ l to Residential, but without a provision requiring the five-year amortization period. If no amortization period were enforced, the use could continue as a lawful non-conforming use and natural economic and development forces would apply to the property in the normal course of events. There are many residential develop- ment restraints affecting the property which staff is aware of from our discussion-narrowness of lot, flag lot next door, etc. If an amortization period were enforced, it would be incumbent on the land owner to challenge thE1 validity of the amortization period in Court to avoid arguments such as waiver, estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc. . .:;cl,n..rio C: A third option would be to have the City acquire the property as part of a redevelopment or other program. possibly the City could create a TIF district (or utilize other funding sources) to obtain funds for the purchase. Roys have received an inquiry (not a purchase agreement) to sell the yard and inventory for $550,000.00. This allocated $350,000.00 for land and improvements and $200,000.00 for inventory. If the City were to purchase, the Roys would be seeking a fair markete value price for the land and building with the provision that it retain possession for two years to reasonably and economically liquidate its inventory. The property would be purchased by the City in its "as is. condition. . s~enario 0: The City and Roys enter into a relocation scheme whereby the Roys recycling yard would be relocat"d to an industrially zoned area in the city. onl' version would be for the City to acquire land, ~uild a suitable L~c~~~ty l~ru~a~lu a ~G.C:;, square foot warehouse/office building) and thun the properties would be exchanged. A plan for selling'off or moving inventory would have to be worked out so that it could be done most cost- effectively.