Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 22, 2015 <br />Attorney also noted that the Board can interpret its own code and <br />ordinances. <br />McGraw stated that in considering this appeal, the financial burden to <br />convert the structure to a single-family home should not be a factor. <br />McGraw indicated that he is conflicted on how the Board should act on <br />this appeal. He noted that there have been problems in the past with this <br />property. McGraw stated that his fear is that if the Board acts in favor of <br />the appeal, the property improvements will not be made. McGraw stated <br />that it was his position that the property should be inspected so that the <br />Board knows the condition of the property and the estimated cost of <br />needed improvements. McGraw suggested that with that information, the <br />City Administrator could put together a development agreement which <br />would outline the needed workscope and timing of improvements. He <br />also felt it necessary to know whether Berres had the resources to make <br />these improvements. <br />Berres indicated that he does have $60,000 to put into the structure. He <br />also noted that some time ago he began purchasing materials for <br />improvements to the structure and has these materials stored at Menards. <br />Torkelson stated that he would be willing to support the appeal provided <br />there was an agreement in place with Berres relative to the improvements. <br />Keis asked if the Board approves the appeal with conditions and those <br />conditions are not met, if the approval would then be negated. The City <br />Attorney agreed that a development agreement should be put in place <br />which would list conditions and timelines. If the development agreement <br />is not complied with, then the approval would be negated. The City <br />Attorney suggested that the conditions in the agreement be very clear. <br />Fischer agreed with the City Attorney's statements that the Board can <br />interpret the Code that if one of the duplex units is vacant for a year or <br />longer, the structure loses its legal non -conforming status. Fischer <br />indicated that the matter could stop there and the structure no longer <br />allowed to be used as a duplex. Fischer agreed that if the Board grants the <br />appeal, then conditions need to be established. Fischer stated that he <br />struggles with whether or not $60,000 will be enough money to rehab the <br />duplex given that he has only seen the outside of the structure. He stated <br />that he did not want the situation to result in Berres' starting the rehab <br />work and then not having enough money to finish it, forcing the City to <br />withdraw the approval of the duplex use. <br />McGraw suggested that the City's Building Official should inspect the <br />property and put together an estimate of the cost to rehab the structure. He <br />9 <br />