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