1/15/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The attached letter to Mr. Berlin briefly details the project's history through the site plan review process. That correspon- dence also identifies the staff's position on -the County's responsibility to ensure that required permits were obtained. The project's current status is complete. All improvements depicted on the site plan were made to the site; the engineer of -record certified that the site had been constructed in conformance with the approved plan; the code enforcement officer inspected the site for conformity, and the building department issued CO's for the project. On April 29, 1985, the building department issued CO's for the entire project with the exception of units 620 and 622. Subsequently, CO's were issued for those two units. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Since CO's have been issued for the entire project, Mr. Berlin's request to withhold further CO's is not applicable. However, several alternatives do exist for dealing with the problems on the site. Although the magnitude and extent of the problems with the shopping center cannot be determined without a detailed engineering analysis, the building director has indicated that there appear to be structural problems with at least one of the buildings. In addition, the public works director has determined that the stormwater system is inade- quate. The major alternatives are as follows: (1) The County can choose to take no action. In this case, the problems would be resolved, probably by .litigation, among the private interests involved. With this option, however, the County risks public safety if the structural problems are severe and risks stormwater impacts on adjacent properties if the drainage problems are severe. (2) The County can attempt to ascertain the magnitude of the problems and condemn the structures if warranted. Although this option would enhance public safety, it would be costly, since the County would need to engage an engineer to do a detailed analysis of the project. (3) The County could initiate code enforcement action against the project's owners. Since detailed engi- neering data as required for condemnation proceedings is not necessary for code enforcement actions, this alternative would be less costly. The major disad- vantages are the timeframe involved in the code enforcement process and the inability of the process to force resolution of the problem. (With the code enforcement process, once a violation is determined to exist, an order specifying compliance is issued and a fine imposed for -noncompliance. However, while the fine provides an incentive for compliance, resolution of the problem is not assured.) RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners choose alternative #1. 47 Boa 63 P,' crE 20� L_ JAN 15 196