Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 28, 1991 <br />McBride reported that Mr. Marshall is a concrete <br />contractor and he is a general contractor, and have <br />worked together on projects over the past several <br />years, and part of the cost of the improvements will be <br />covered in this way. There will also be a mortgage <br />taken out to cover project costs. McBride reported <br />that they are willing to prove that they have the <br />funding necessary to cover the costs of the <br />improvements. <br />Hanson did not think that the Council should be <br />involved in the financial aspects of the project. It <br />was noted that an occupancy permit would not be issued <br />for the house if it did not meet building code <br />requirements. <br />There was no one from the general public present <br />wishing to comment on this matter. <br />Scalze asked if the garage was a part of the proposal <br />and would be constructed right away. <br />McBride replied that it was. <br />Blesener stated that he felt the cost would be the same <br />or less to tear the house down and rebuild with all the <br />improvements that are necessary to the existing <br />structure. Blesener felt that the request pushed the <br />variance requirements to the limit, and he had a <br />difficult time supporting the request. <br />Scalze asked what the options were, pointing out that <br />if the CUP and Variance are not approved, the City is <br />saying that the structure must be torn down. <br />Hanson agreed. Hanson stated that he looked at the <br />area and reviewed the reports, and there was no way <br />that Shoreland Ordinance requirements could be met in <br />this particular area. <br />Scalze stated that she did not know the status of the <br />ownership of the property, whether or not it was <br />purchased on a contingency. Scalze stated that she <br />would like to accept the recommendation of the Planner, <br />which is for denial, however, that would mean that the <br />structure has to be removed as an unsafe structure, <br />resulting in an empty lot. Scalze asked who owns the <br />empty lot, pointing out that the City Attorney has <br />indicated that it would not be a taking. <br />LaValle pointed out that the Planning Commission has <br />not seen the new plan for the structure. <br />Page 4 <br />