Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 28, 1991 <br />It was pointed <br />indicated that <br />uninhabitable. <br />needed to make <br />value. <br />out that the Building Inspector has <br />the structure is dilapidated and <br />The Planner pointed out that repairs <br />the house habitable exceed 50% of its <br />McBride reported that the house was purchased for over <br />$30,000. McBride stated that if there is concern about <br />the garage that is proposed, the garage can be <br />eliminated. McBride indicated that the garage was <br />added because that is what the Planning Commission and <br />Building Inspector wanted. McBride reported that there <br />would be room to park a car next to the house. <br />McBride reported that they have purchased the property, <br />and would like an opportunity to update it in <br />conformance with the other structures along Little <br />Canada Road. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by Collova, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />LaValle pointed out that there are plans for upgrading <br />the two strip malls across the street. LaValle also <br />pointed out that the structure only consists of 520 <br />square feet. <br />McBride replied that there are two levels, each <br />consisting of 528 square feet. There is currently an <br />outdoor staircase connecting the two levels, and that <br />staircase will be enclosed as part of the proposal <br />before the Council. <br />LaValle was concerned that if Little Canada Road is <br />widened, rather than dealing with a house with a$9,000 <br />value, the value will be substantially increased. <br />LaValle asked what exposure the City would have by <br />granting the variance. <br />Hanson questioned the feasibility of widening Little <br />Canada Road, pointing out that it doesn't connect to <br />anything on the west, while County Road C does. <br />Blesener replied that reconstruction of Little Canada <br />Road is in the County's plans. <br />Blesener pointed out the Building Inspector's comments <br />about zoning issues and non-conformity of the <br />structure, that is, the lot size not meeting minimum <br />standards, the house not meeting setback requirements, <br />etc. Blesener stated that it was his opinion that the <br />house has almost no value, therefore, the question was <br />should a variance be granted to allow a structure to be <br />put on a non-conforming lot. <br />Page 7 <br />