PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin noted that the Commission was told that the owner did not know the loft was not permitted, but the Commission was provided photographs of the loft under construction. He inquired if this was correct. Ms. Stern replied that was correct. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Commissioner Pearce disclosed that she visited the subject property and met with the neighbors but was unable to speak with the applicant. Charanjit Pangali, applicant, stated that he has lived in the property since 1994 and was very amicable with the neighbors. He indicated that the loft was installed in 2005, and for the next five years, they never heard a complaint from the neighbors that their privacy had been invaded or compromised in some way. Mr. Pangali continued that when they decided to put their house on the market in April of 2010, their realtor did a background check and discovered that there was no permit for the loft addition. He indicated that they met with City staff in May of 2010 to begin the process of getting the loft permitted. He noted that City Building staff visited their home and advised them that the window needs to be relocated because it did not have enough clearance in the loft area. He added that this was the first time they were made aware that the windows needed to be moved and were advised to retain a licensed contractor to draw proper designs for the window. Mr. Pangali noted that the details of the Background section of the staff report looked like a big disconnect from what had actually occurred. He indicated that they had put a lot of hard work over the past eight to nine months. He stated that his purpose is not to rehash history because he wants to move forward and solve this problem; however, in fairness to his wife who did all the leg work, he would like the record to be clear. He emphasized that he did not just show up at the City offices on February 1St and asked for a permit to relocate window without disclosing the loft because that would not solve their problem of getting the loft permitted. He indicated that he explained to City staff that he needed a permit for the loft area and to relocate the window. He stated that City staff told him go ahead and relocate the window while staff took care of the loft permit because a loft permit cannot be issue if the window is not in its proper place. He added that he had actually proposed a smaller window in the loft area but that this was rejected because he was told it would be easier to permit him to relocate the existing window if he did not create new space and that as long as he used the same window, he could proceed in relocating it. He indicated that he also informed staff at that time about the objections of his neighbor, and he was told that he needed to go through the Administrative Design Review process to have the project permitted. Mr. Pangali continued that they made both oral and written approaches to his neighbors to get input as to how their privacy was being impacted. He indicated that the neighbor visited their house and looked at his property from the existing window and from the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 15 of 21