PL PACKET 12201988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 •1 Ms. VanderHeyden reported the City had within the last few days 2 determined that no contractor had -been used for the expansion project 3 which had been done by the proprietors themselves, which, she said, is 4 also in violation of the City Code. Action on this violation would be 5 delayed until the City Manager returns from vacation. Ms. VanderHeyden 6 told Commissioner Hansen the Public Works Director had inspected the 7 property and she thought, but wasn't certain, had found the work had 8 conformed to the City code. 9 ARRlicant Pleads Ignorance of City Requirements 10 Mr. Belisle said he was the President and owner of Video Update and told 11 the Commissioners: 12 *he had not realized he needed to apply for an amendment to the 13 conditional use permit to expand his operation into the vacant space 14 next door, for which he apologized; 15 *he thought he only needed a building permit if he were to build 16 support bearing walls and said all he and three of his salesmen did was 17 to remove two free standing walls and repair some drywall; 18 *the work was completed in 36 hours, where hiring a contractor would 19 have forced him to shut down his business and cost a lot more money. 6 0 When the video store owner said he still wasn't certain he needed a 1 building permit for the work he had done, Chair Wagner told him he had 22 to at least apply for the permit and the determination would be made by 23 the City after finding out just what the extent of the work had been 24 because a project as big as this one could very well have required a 25 licensed electrician or plumber. 26 Ms. VanderHeyden explained that the City wanted to be certain a 27 contractor hadn't done the work without a permit which would have been 28 another violation of the City Code and therefore had not required a 29 permit from the store owner up until now. 30 Chair Wagner then reiterated that the permit extension was still 31 dependent upon the removal of the flashing window lights which appeared 32 to be a long standing violation problem with this store. Mr. Belisle 33 confirmed that a while ago he had been notified by the City that he was 34 in violation of the City Code, to which a lawyer from the Video Update 35 franchise had responded with a letter to the City saying the lighting 36 "did meet the City Ordinance because those lights were a symbol of that 37 type of business just the same as the revolving signs in front of barber 38 shops are" . The store owner reported the City had made no response to 39 the lawyer's letter and he had therefore assumed that "things were OK" . 40 Mr. Belisle told the Commissioners that "the flashing lights are no 41 longer . flashing and won't be -flashing in the future. " He confirmed �2 that he would accept that as a condition for extending his conditional �3 use permit to allow the store expansion. The. store owner said