14 ATTACHMENT 4-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

as other time periods; she noted that it was another tool to compel people to comply and that it could be added to the eight-month time period recommended by staff. Commissioner Olson noted that the financing aspect of this project had not been discussed, and he would like to hear the applicant's perspective regarding whether that had caused the delay. Ms. Decker noted that the City did not look at the applicant's financing in terms of constraints or completion. Staff encouraged them to look for whatever means was available to complete the work. The applicants evaluated their position and confirmed that they would be able to financially complete the work within the timeframe and that they would hire contractors to complete the work. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether the applicants may receive any further extensions, Ms. Decker confirmed that as currently conditioned, they would not be able to apply for or receive further extensions. Commissioner Pearce inquired whether the Planning Commission may modify the proposed conditions of approval to remove the ability of the applicants to return with a new design review application if they did not complete the work in eight months. Ms. Harryman replied that the Commission may do that by informing the applicant that they would not be supportive if he returned in eight months for design review consideration. Commissioner O'Connor inquired what would happen if the applicants had not completed their building at the six-month benchmark inspection. Ms. Decker noted that staff encouraged the applicants to complete the project as proposed; however, if it is not completed, it would trigger Code Enforcement action. Commissioner O'Connor read Condition No. 4 as requiring the applicant to complete the entire project and would like to know what the City's recourse would be in that event. Chairperson Fox noted that the Planning Commission often saw extensions of original approvals to complete work, such as with California Splash. Ms. Decker noted that this condition was created in conjunction with discussions with the applicant, who had committed to complete all of the work, as well as the work being completed for the 2001 approval and for this request. If the additions under consideration were not permitted and the design review for the two additions would have become null, the applicant would remove the second-story addition and the bathroom and continue the previously permitted construction on their home. Commissioner Blank noted that the language in Condition No. 5 read, "The Planning Director may allow earlier start times for specific construction activities if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the construction and construction traffic noise will not affect nearby residents." Ms. Decker noted that was standard language used to mitigate contractor requests during the hot summer months to start work at 6:30 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. Staff often worked with the surrounding neighbors on a case-by-case basis. She emphasized that it was not a blanket condition or approval for early start times. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 26, 2007 Page 4 of 12