Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 15, 1992 <br />Grabrick explained how the house was constructed in <br />1981 that resulted in the encroachment problem. <br />Grabrick pointed out that placement of the foundation <br />was inspected by the City and accepted. If the <br />encroachment had been discovered at that time, Grabrick <br />indicated that he would have had recourse against the <br />contractor, or could have purchased the adjacent <br />property which was for sale at the time. Grabrick <br />reported that the encroachment was not discovered until <br />1988. Grabrick also indicated that the encroachment <br />was the result of an honest mistake. <br />Scalze stated that she would like to see the <br />non-conforming situation cleared up in the future. <br />Grabrick replied that if the adjacent property is for <br />sale, he will purchase it. Grabrick reported that his <br />house is on pilings, and should the house be destroyed, <br />it would be cost approximately $30,000 to put in new <br />pilings. Insurance would not cover the cost of <br />foundation work. Grabrick reported that it would be a <br />financial hardship for him to move his foundation. <br />Scalze asked if there was any documentation that an <br />offer to purchase the adjacent property was made. <br />Blesener noted in the Planning Commission minutes that <br />the adjacent property owner, Mr. Ryan, acknowledged <br />that Mr. Grabrick had made an offer. Mr. Ryan has yet <br />to respond to that offer. <br />Blesener indicated that he would be willing to accept <br />the recommendation of the Planning Commission and would <br />hope that Mr. Grabrick could work out the purchase of <br />adjacent property. <br />Grabrick stated that if he could not purchase adjacent <br />property, he would be back in with another variance <br />request in the near future. <br />Blesener stated that he was disappointed to see that <br />Grabrick had started construction on the addition to <br />his house without the necessary permits. <br />Grabrick pointed out that outside construction is <br />subject to the weather, and he only had so much <br />available time to do the construction. <br />Scalze did not believe the weather should have been a <br />factor, pointing out that the proposal could have been <br />planned ahead. Scalze felt that the City had too many <br />other things to do than process permit violations. <br />Page 3 <br />