receiving copies of all the documents we submitted with our concerns, we would have made sure you received copies of everything and that you were made aware of the numerous phone calls made to the Planning Department.  We will be certain this occurs from now on.

Baker No. 2 - Mr. Warner applied for a building permit on March 12, 1997, and signed the application as the owner of the property.  In the 1997 Code Book, section 1.080, No. 58, an owner is defined as "the owner of record of real property as shown on the tax rolls of the county, or a person who is purchasing a piece of property under contract."  Mr. Warner did not become the owner of the property until April 21, 1997 and he is not buying the property on contract.  This alone should have made the initial application invalid.  We are asking that the original permit be revoked because section 1.070.390 of the Code authorizes revocation of approvals if a material misrepresentation or mistake of fact is made by the applicant or the city in the application or in testimony and evidence submitted, whether such misrepresentation be intentional or unintentional. 

Mr. Baker states that at the time he made the decision to issue the permit, his interpretation was that the building "complied with the standards for an R-7 zone and for an accessory building."  None of the documents issued by the Planning Department stated that this building was to be an accessory building.  Every document (application, permits, etc.) listed the building as a garage.  The 1997 Code Book lists the maximum size of a garage as 1200 square feet not as a "building of considerable size in footprint and height."  This is not an accessory structure as described in the code book.   As you can see, it is of commercial size and it is not subordinate.  We wonder at this time whether Mr. Baker has changed his mind about his interpretations.  Please see attached copy of incomplete application/permit No. 5745.   

On March 12, 1997 Mr. Warner did apply to build a 40x60 foot wood frame garage.  However, on the official, typed application/permit, signed by the appropriate officials on March 19, 1997, there is no documentation of size and none of the officials marked out the word "garage" and replaced it with "accessory building."   This emphasizes the fact that this was an incomplete, misrepresented application and permit.

Baker No. 3 - Mr. Warner asked for and received a building permit for "addition (living space) in garage based on permit #5745" the day after the final inspection of the garage by the "Building Official only."  At this point, the Planning Department was still denying there was a living space in the garage (contrary to the many phone calls from neighbors that an apartment was being built).  Perhaps when the final inspection of the garage took place the "Building Official" noticed there was a sizable apartment within the building.   We can only speculate as to why the living space was allowed to be added to the original garage permit without notification to the neighbors.

With all the controversy going on, it is surprising to us that Mr. Baker has not gone to the garage to make an inspection since under New Code Book chapter 1.030.050.A, "[t]he Planning Director may enter on any site or into any structure for the purposes of investigation...."

Baker No. 4 - Mr. Baker states "I recall a phone call from a neighbor who complained that a living space was being installed in the garage" and that Mr. Baker  "checked with the builder/owner and he said he was not building a dwelling unit in the building."  We take exception to Mr. Baker alluding to "a phone call" since we estimate 15 to 20 calls were made to the Planning Department during all phases of the construction.  The first calls began when several trees were removed and continued as we witnessed other questionable activities such as huge sides being raised during framing and fixtures and appliances being taken into the building.     These calls continue on a regular basis at this time and now far surpass 20 phone calls.

Baker No. 5 - Mr. Baker states that he "found that a building permit had been issued by the building official in 1998 for a "living space" in the "garage"." Mr. Baker is the Planning Director and the fact that this permit had been issued should not have eluded him.   By the last sentence in this paragraph, Mr. Baker confirms his and Mr. Warner's knowledge that they are in violation of city regulations. 

To this date, it is our belief that Mr. Warner has moved nothing from the living space in the garage.  We feel Mr. Baker or someone from the Planning Department should make an inspection to assure compliance.

Baker No. 6 - As you can see, Mr. Baker continues to confirm there is a violation and attempts to assist Mr. Warner in correcting the improprieties which occurred.   The reason Mr. Warner cannot partition his property is because it does not meet partition criteria, which includes  setbacks, Comprehensive Plan, etc.

Baker No. 7 - Mr. Baker processed and approved Mr. Warner's application for partition several days before obtaining information and comment from affected city departments that would insure that all criteria was met for partitioning.  See attached Letter to Property Owner and Referral Reply and Comment to the fire marshal, city engineer, public works department, police department and building department.

In compliance with Mr. Baker's notice, several Hankins subdivision neighbors appealed the process to the Planning Commission.  Following the appeal  Mr. Baker admitted the city attorney advised him of his faulty decision on the partition.   Therefore,