04-28-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COUNCIL MEETING APR 2 8 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ' CrTYOFORONO DATE: April 23, 1997 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Jim Bruce Request for Clarification of Council Action Regarding Fox Hollow Subdivision Background on Anplication The Fox Hollow subdivision, a three lot subdivision, was approved by the Council on September 25, 1995. The subdivision proposal included the retention of an existing cottage as an accessory sUncture to a proposed new house. Staff advised the applicant that if the cottage was to be retained as a guest house the applicant would need to provide 2 additional acres of land area for the guest house. The applicant did not provide an additional 2 acres of land area for the cottage, but rather proposed retention of the cottage as an accessor>' structure to provide expanded living space, but not as a separate dwelling unit. Staff indicated that in o*-der for the cottage to be retained as an accessory stnictiac without additional lot area it could not be retained as a separate dwelling. The kitchen would need to be removed and covenants would need to be recorded to ensure the accessory structure would not be used as a separate dwelling unit. As this application was discussed at the Planning Commission, it was indicated that in order for the cottage to be retained the kitchen would need to be removed and covenants would need to be recorded to ensure the accessory structure would not be used as an independent dwelling unit. The Planning Commission approved the subdivision application but the language of the Planning Commission recommendation did not specifically address the accessory structure issue. The City Council approved the application as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several months after the approval of the subdivision, the applicant contacted the City to clarify the language of the covenants required regarding the accessory structure. At that time, Jeanne Mabusth indicated that the Planning Commission, in its action, chose not to address the future use of the cottage as an accessory structure. The Planning Commission action recommended that the structure could be incorporated as part of a future principal structure and that it cannot remain as a separate guest house, but the recommendation language did not address the future use of the house as an accessory structure providing expanded living space. 1