14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether there were gaps in the inspections, Ms. Decker replied that the record stated that inspections were performed in a timely fashion and according to the Code. The current approvals and building permits were in full force and have not expired. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal, thereby approving the request for the design review for portions of the home that had not been permitted. Staff was also concerned and sympathetic to the neighbors during the ongoing construction and added that another home in the neighborhood was undergoing construction. Because the applicants' home had undergone construction for a long time, in an effort to mitigate that length of time, the Zoning Code allowed a design review approval to be valid for one year from the date of approval. Staff recommended that the Commission consider allowing this design review approval to be valid for a period of 60 days, which followed the intent of the Zoning Administrator in terms of getting a permit in order to do the work. Staff also examined what was a reasonable period of time to complete all of the work and had gathered information from the City's building inspectors and the contractors. The City would like to see this project completed and believed both the interior and exterior could be completed within asix-month time period. Staff conditioned the project to obtain a building permit for the two sections, but all of the work must be completed within six months. If the building permit has not been obtained within 60 days, the design review approval would expire. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding consequences if the project was not completed within six months, Ms. Decker replied that the design review would no longer be valid and that they would have to reapply for design review. If design review lapses, the applicant may reapply; however, if that application was denied, the applicant may not reapply for the same project for a year. In this case, staff did not condition the application so that it must be demolished, It would become a Code Enforcement action if the approval lapses. Commissioner Olson noted that there were two Exhibit B's in the package, one issued on July 20, including Condition 6, which appeared to be the "teeth" in the process. He inquired why that condition was removed, based on the history of this project as described in the Minutes and a part of the Zoning Administrator conditions of approval. Ms. Decker noted that the issue of nuisance abatement had been discussed, which generally addressed weeds and debris in yards that could be cleaned up and removed easily. She was not aware of a circumstance where the City has physically demolished structures or a portion thereof. The City was reticent to go into private property and demolish portions of a structure that was under construction that did not meet the definition of "substandard." If the applicants did not keep their permits in effect, it would be more likely become a Code Enforcement matter. Ms. Harryman noted that if the Planning Commission was inclined to include that language, it could be done. A section of the Code covered buildings which were "left in an unreasonable state of partial construction." She believed that an eight-month time period of approval and construction would be reasonable to complete the project ,and then if it is not completed, the Code would apply. She added that there were also letter-writing periods to allow notice as well EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 3 of 12