10-05-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- requested, I don't believe the County is required to hold back, only done as a courtesy. Valid answer would require reviewing the contract; City could be beneficiary of some clause in that contract, or there's absence in some clause of the contract, allowing City to withhold something. --Fraser could see progress being made in reducing material into salable size; and Mottaz and Novak recommended time limit be placed on this effort or otherwise it be treated as trash and gotten rid of. M/S/ Mottaz/Novak to allow 30 days to reduce concrete to an aggregate size useable with classified gravel, and if this is not done in 30 days then we follow our original request to the Hammes. --Fraser - 30 days not enough time. Motion amended to 60 days. Motion as amended carried 5-0. B. House/Building Moving - Whittaker explained that Home 1 is to go on lot they're platting (planning in progress but not finished as yet). Home 2 is supposed to be moved off property. Garage was to have been placed on permanent foundation on their property by end of September. If $5,000 bond called in, City could move Home 2 off property but City would have to pay for storage and sell it, which would probably cost more than the bond. --Bill Hammes said effort now being made to get garage on foundation before the construction season ends. Also checking on lots for Home 2 outside of village, definitely want to get that one on, too, before season ends. Have good possibilities on it. --Marshal, Attorney, regarding who pays storage - if building inspector say's it can be certified as hazardous building per State statutes, cost of removal could be assessed back to property and be payable with real estate taxes. If not, simply treated as a nuisance which requires district court determination of assessed value; therefore reasonably good likelihood you can recoup costs on that basis. --Mottaz - if there's another extension and nothing materializes, then we're in limbo again for another 6 months. --Morgan - my feeling is that they've made progress on one home, and to give them more time to see what they can do...90 or 60 days; if no progress, Council will have to take action at that time. --Whittaker in response to Novak's question - Ray and I will outlineti procedure as to what happens if this is not completed. --Eder - would like you, Bill, to give Whittaker progress report once a week; and if you don't do that the motion is void. Or, if Whittaker not there, write a note reporting status. (Whittaker - or talk with Jim, building inspector as to status, and he'll report to Whittaker.) M/S/P Mottaz/Morgan to allow Mr. Hammes a 60-day extension to have Home 2 moved and garage placed on permanent foundation. Carried 5-0. 7. DEAN JOHNSTON, REAPPLICATION FOR VARIANCES TO BUILD ON LOT 5, J. L. COHN SUBDIVISION - (REF: Variances as set forth in Jim McNamara, Building Official's, memo of 9/30/82 to Mayor and City Council re "Dean Johnston-Shoreland Permit"; and TKDA recommendations as set forth in Larry Bohrer's letter of 9/15/82 to Mayor &..City- Council re "Dean Johnston Site Plan.'Review .. Commission No. 7113-82.") --Bohrer reviewed changes in variances. Dean Johnston is reapplying for 2-bedroom home with disposal, decreasing size of drainfield signifi- cantly; now 3 variances needed: lot size, house setback, and septic tank setback. --Eder questioned variations of perc rates, 4 to 20 minutes. --Bohrer - code allows the owner to use the average of the 3 percolation rates; the design would be based on the 6-15 minute range. As a safety