My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-28-1991 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
08-28-1991 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2014 11:18:55 AM
Creation date
7/23/2013 1:04:24 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 8, 1991 <br />Drabik agreed, but pointed out that the matter was <br />tabled at the last meeting pending additional <br />information which has not been supplied. Plans were to <br />have been submitted to the Building Inspector for his <br />review. Drabik was concerned that given this <br />experience, the project may continue with the same lack <br />of information and communication. <br />Pedersen felt the Commission should first decide <br />whether it wants the property upgraded or not, and then <br />worry about the mechanics of the process. <br />DeLonais pointed out that detailed plans were to have <br />been submitted to the Building Inspector, and they were <br />not. <br />Grittman pointed out that there are significant <br />Building Code issues that need to be addressed. Favis <br />indicated at the last meeting that she has obtained a <br />rehab loan for the property, and the Commission <br />requested documentation from the rehab loan people <br />indicating that the rehab will bring the structure into <br />compliance with Code. This information was to have <br />been submitted to the Building Inspector, and was not. <br />Grittman indicated that the report from the rehab loan <br />people will say what has to be done to the structure. <br />McBride reported that if the CUP and Variance are <br />approved, he will proceed with the proper documentation <br />and procedure as requested by the City. <br />Bendel stated that he had concern with the exterior of <br />the structure only being painted and not modernized. <br />Bendel suggested that new siding and windows would make <br />a difference, and felt only painting the structure was <br />a band -aid on the seasonal cabin. <br />McBride indicated that the existing siding on the <br />structure was good and the type of siding used on many <br />new homes. <br />The Planner indicated that if the siding is sound, Code <br />would only require the repainting and not replacement. <br />Pedersen was concerned that the structure could not be <br />resold since a buyer would not be able to get a loan on <br />it. <br />McBride felt that once the structure net Code, a <br />conventional loan would be possible, and with the <br />addition of bedrooms in the lower level, an FHA loan <br />would be possible. <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.