PC 032515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch noted that one of the questions asked earlier was whether the owners could rent out the entire property and have the teenage son move to the second unit, and that would be compliant. Commissioner O'Connor replied that the owner is allowed to rent to only one person or one family, and it cannot be assumed that there is going to be a violation until there actually is one. Commissioner Balch noted that it would be difficult to enforce because there is no way to know that they are all part of one family. Chair Allen asked staff to clarify what the procedure would be for handling a situation if it was found to be in violation and is brought to Code Enforcement. Mr. Weinstein replied that if a complaint is made to Code Enforcement, the Officer would come out and observe what is happening on the site, and if a violation is found, a fine can be imposed on the property owner in this case; and if after a certain period of time, the issue was not rectified, the Officer could impose additional fines on the property owner. Ms. Harryman added that if compliance is not ultimately attained, the City could take legal action. She noted that this has not happened because the City usually gets voluntary compliance because citations ramp up and are usually effective. Commissioner Balch added that it would be a Condition of Approval and so someone could be directly in violation of those conditions. Ms. Wallis said that was correct. Commissioner Piper stated that it sounds like there is really not much that can be done unless there is a violation in the future. She noted that it would be unfortunate if there is a mis- intention; but otherwise, everything looks good to her and is done to compliance at this point. Commissioner Nagler agreed and stated that he thinks it is a mystery why this is being built, that it is clear in the correspondence that there is a suspicion that the Rochas are moving, and considering the money that is going to be put into this construction on the idea that it is going to generate revenue in some way if they are not going to occupy it; but that is not the Commission's business other than making sure that the City's policy is clearly stated as a condition of approval. With respect to the location on the property, he stated that he does not think it is reasonable to request that it be elsewhere on the property for all the reasons that everyone already stated. He added that to suggest that the egress and regress of vehicles to this property be off of the circular drive is unreasonable because it will create more of a traffic hazard coming in and out of the driveway on Sycamore Road. He pointed out that it appears trees would have to be removed from the property in order to make for that additional driveway, which would completely change the aesthetic of the property for no particular reason since there is perfectly good access off of Pioneer Trails Place. He indicated that the only question he has goes back to the construction vehicle business, and if it is a private road and the maintenance is shared in quarters by the four property owners, he would think it would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 25, 2015 Page 22 of 27