RE: 'ice house'/accessory structure/hardcover issues

Home Browse Search

� �� 5-23-l�3 To: Tom Barrett, City Attorney From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date: March 31, 2003 Subject: Gary& Susan Cable residence, 3532 Ivy Place - Failure to remove hardcover/structure violations The Cables acquired this property on August 31, 2000. They immediately applied for and were issued a permit for demolition of principal and accessory structures on September 7, 2000. On September 14, 2000 the Cables' contractor, Curt Christensen applied for a permit to construct a new residence on the site. The plan was found by the City to propose hardcover far in excess of that allowed by City code. The plans were subsequently revised by the applicants a number of times until they had reduced hardcover to a conforming 25%(75-250'zone)level,by reducing the size of the house and the driveway as well as walkways, etc. During this `paring'process they concluded they would request variances to allow them to keep the `icehouse' accessory building in the 0-75' zone, which had become nonconforming due to removal of the principal structure (acc. struc. not allowed without principal structure) and would normally be required to be removed upon redevelopment of the site. The Cables were issued a building permit on November 16,2000 subj ect to their written agreement to abide by the results of the variance application in terms of the icehouse removal. Building Official Lyle Oman has also indicated that in order to meet the 25%hardcover limit the proposed pavement to serve the third garage stall would have to be omitted. This last requirement was noted by Lyle Oman on the site plan approved with the building permit on 11/13/00, and was documented during the variance application review. Oman has indicated to me that in order to obtain the building permit, the Cables' contractor agreed to this condition on their behalf, indicating "that stall is just for storage anyhow". Construction of the new home proceeded through the winter and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy(TCO)was issued Apri14, 2001 subject to: 1. Provide final grade. 2. The shed(icehouse)must be removed or get approval within 90 days from the City. 3. Silt fence must remain in place until landscaping is installed. The TCO did not reference removal of pavement in front of the third garage stall, since driveway construction had not yet occurred, and the variance approval outcome was pending. During home construction the variance application proceeded through the normal but protracted process due to tablings, etc. and the concerns of Councilmember White as to whether there was a basis to allow the icehouse to remain as a historical building.No such information was forthcoming, and ultimately the Council denied the variances and adopted Resolution No.4671 on July 23,2001. That denial resolution was filed at the County Recorder's Office on September 24, 2001 as Document No. 7546839.