PC 06/27/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1984 Page 4 to everyones' monthly payments. He urged the Planning Commission to consider denying the application of Stoneson for a conditional use permit to operate a sales office and model home complex for the townhouses until they earn the right to sell homes. He felt that to grant approval would cause financial harm to the owners of the existing units. He read an excerpt from the newspaper quoting Mr. Swift, the Assistant City Attorney. He stated he felt sure the Planning Commission would make a just and reasonable decision concerning this application and would do whatever is right. Commissioner Wilson asked for a breakdown of the $9,000 assessed to each homeowner. Mr. Perkins stated that approximately $2,000 was for homeowners repairing roofs. Out of the 98 total roofs which are damaged only 15 have been permanently repaired. Many roofs have had stop-gap repairs made to them. They have been unable to get a proper plan to fix the roofs. Commissioner Wilson asked if $2,000 has been spent on each roof. Mr. Perkins said, no. Commissioner Wilson asked again how many roofs have been fixed. Mr. Perkins reiterated that 15 have been permanently repaired as there has been an architectural problem. Commissioner Wilson asked if the homeowners had hired an architect. Mr. Perkins stated that they have hired one. Commissioner Wilson asked what would happen if they lost the lawsuit. Mr. Perkins indicated that they need $8,000-$9,000 and have assessed themselves this amount to take care of the existing problems so that the problems do not get worse. It may be too late to repair the roofs this year as they are still attempting to get a plan together. Furthermore ,everyone doesn't have $6,000 to contribute. Commissioner Wilson asked how the $1,040,000 would be used to repair the roofs. Mr. Perkins indicated that the existing roofs would have to be torn down and a slope put into a new one. Commissioner Wilson asked if it was the roofer's idea to put a pitch in the roof. Mr. Perkins indicated that it is the architect's idea (Mr. Glowkowsky). Commissioner Wilson asked how many square feet were in each area of the roof. The opponents indicated that they are approximately 950 sq. ft. for each unit. Commissioner Wilson asked the opponents whether or not they have taken their complaints to the Division of Real Estate. Mr. Perkins indicated that they have done this. Commissioner Wilson said if they listened to the complaint they would prohibit the sale of the new homes. Mr. Perkins felt that a member of the homeowners association could more properly answer this question. Commissioner Wilson then asked if complaints were filed with the Contractor's Licensing Board or any consumer board. Mr. Perkins stated that someone else could more properly answer the questions posed by the Commissioner. Commissioner Wilson told Mr. Perkins that the application under discussion and consideration is an application for a model home complex and has nothing to do with the roofs of the existing dwelling units. The problems of the roofs should probably be resolved by the Contractor's Licensing Board, court of law or other legal remedy. The Department of Real Estate has evidently issued them a report which allows them to sell the units. Mr. Perkins asked the Planning Commission to consider something larger than the 24 homes under application. Chairman Doherty then asked the Assistant City Attorney where the current owners of the townhomes should be voicing their grievances. Mr. Swift, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that the application under consideration is for a conditional use permit to operate a model home complex and sales office. Three findings are required to be made to grant approval of the conditional use permit. If the findings are made, the Commission can approve the use and if findings cannot be made then the Commisison cannot approve it. He then read excerpts from the purposes and objectives of the ordinance code governing conditional use permit applications. If the Planning Commisison can link the leaking roofs to the conditional use permit application then they can deny it. From comments made by the previous speaker it would appear that they have sought the proper legal remedies concerning their grievances and Mr. Swift has not heard anything in the testimony which would link the leaking roofs to this application. -4- _--__._ _ __. __~.__~_.. __ _ . __...a .__._._..____.r__...._ . ...__. _ . ____.. _..__ _. _ _ _._ . _. r