Laserfiche WebLink
Kevin Fagerstrom <br />January 21, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />me to believe that any "conversion" has taken place; rather that maybe the City rccords carrying the <br />property as x single family residencc have always inaccurately dcscribed the property as a single <br />family residence. <br />t guess whcrc the above qucstions anJ comments takc mc to is that my clicnts did not cause this <br />"conversion"; rather, if therc was a conversion, it occurted a long time ago and was completed in <br />accordance with zoning and building codc requircments that cxisted at the time of the "conversion". <br />So while my clicnts arc willing to comply with most ofthe building code requirements and are also <br />wi Iling to re plant most of thc arca with grass, is the City wil ling to negotiate over the parking paving <br />requiremcnt� on the basis that this "conversion" probably pre-dated any codc requirements and is <br />gnndfa[hered under those codc requirements? <br />I also have a couple of qucstions rcgarding thc work noted by thc rccent inspection: <br />1. Rcgurding thc landscaping requircments, thc "work ordcr" rcquires compliance with the <br />current codc. Current codc docs not provide any specifics for the landscaping otUer than Type IV <br />landscaping which in twn is defined xs what is req�ired to pre��ent erosion etc. I sec no evidence that <br />erosion is a problem to thc cast o1'the cxisting duplex. Why isdt thc removal of the gravel and the <br />planting of grass sufficient to satisfy the landscaping requirements as opposcd to paragraph 4 ofthe <br />Proposcd Order submiticd to thc HE. <br />2. Plcasc provide me with the code reference that rcquires a wcathcr cover ovcr thc cntry for <br />Unit ]3. <br />3. Rcgarding item 714 on thc Building Dcpartmcnt list, is P�at rcyuircmcnt limited to the <br />removal of the 3 pronged oudets in favor of the replacemcnt a�h� 2 pronged outlets? <br />Sincc , <br />Dcnnis Jord i <br />cc: Clicnts <br />