2/20/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 2 0 1985 BooK 59 i3,: 956 honored the request of the Board in making that agreement. The additional items recommended by staff, he did not believe came under the scope of the charge of the Commission. Re a project construction schedule, Attorney Stewart noted that apparently this is required, and they are amenable to that. The other question was simply how a 4 unit building is going to operate as a hotel. obviously, it cannot operate as a hotel; it has to be an integral part of the whole project and will be used as a sales center in the interim. With regard to the principal issue of the hearing, as to whether a good faith effort has been made to complete the project, Attorney Stewart did not believe there is any point in reviewing all the information presented at the January 23rd meeting, which was incorporated into the record at that time. He emphasized that they do feel they have a valid site plan, and they do not feel evidence has been presented at the public hearings which would form a basis for revocation of their site plan. Attorney Stewart believed Mr. Nutt's agreement to conform with all the current ordinance requirements has eliminated one of the primary problems. Commissioner Wodtke asked if any consideration was given to relocating the buildings a little further west in relation to the coastal erosion problem. Attorney Stewart stated that they have looked at the site from the erosion point of view but have not asked their engineer to do a survey out there. Their impression is that whatever erosion has taken place is not of such significance that it would affect the proposed location of the buildings. If information is obtained which signifies there is a problem, this will be dealt with. There is flexibility in the plan, but it is not unlimited. Commissioner Wodtke felt there is no question that when the DNR does do a resurvey in 1986, there will be a change in our coastal construction.setback line in certain areas. He wondered 50 - M M