07-22-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 22, 2015 would use to bring the structure up to Code. Berres indicated that his plan would be to rehab the structure and have the duplex rented within 4 to 6 months so that he can start generating rental income from the property. Montour asked how long the rental unit has been empty. Berres replied that it has been empty since 2011 or 2012 since the water damage occurred. Berres reported that it has been empty for the last 1 1/2 years given the City's administrative decision that the property could not be used as a duplex. Torkelson asked if Berres was planning to rehab the duplex doing some work on his own and some with hired contractors. Berres replied that that was correct. Berres again indicated that he has money set aside from the water damage claim to do the work. That figure was approximately $60,000. Fischer noted the issue of the lapse of duplex use as well as the issue of unsafe condition of the property. Fischer asked if the rental unit was declared unsafe. Berres reported that his last tenants were not paying rent or utilities and the power company turned off the electricity to the unit. The tenant then ran a power cord from a neighboring property to the rental unit. Berres reported that in order to evict these tenants, he had the City's inspector look at the property and declare it unsafe. Fischer clarified that the rental unit was declared unsafe by the City on Berres' behalf in managing the property. Berres replied that that was correct. Berres then commented on the code relative to the discontinued use of the duplex, noting that his interpretation was that the duplex use was not discontinued given one of the units was occupied. Torkelson asked if Berres was aware prior to receipt of the letter from the City that both units of the duplex needed to be occupied in order to continue the legal non- conforming use. Berres stated that he was not. Berres also reported that when he purchased the property in 1988 he was not aware of the non- conforming status of the property. Keis asked the City Attorney about Berres' interpretation. The City Attorney stated that Berres' interpretation of the Code was incorrect as the Code refers to the use of a structure. The City Attorney also noted that the 1986 MN Court of Appeals case, City of St. Cloud v. Voigt relating to the issue of a lapse of non -conforming use was somewhat similar yet different given that St. Cloud was prosecuting this case in the criminal court. The City Attorney indicated that the Board should consider the evidence as well as the City Planner's report in making a decision on this appeal. He noted that one key element is the discontinued use of the duplex. The 8