12 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

heard by the Planning Commission at the August 25, 2010, hearing. During the hearing, the Planning Commission asked the applicants and the appellants if they would consider mediation as a method to reach a suitable solution. The appellants (Persins, Hoehnes, and Perrys) stated that they would be interested in mediation, but the applicants (Lopezes) declined participation since they felt it would not result in a solution that would be agreeable to all parties. Additionally, the applicants were seeking a decision from the Planning Commission the evening of the meeting. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project by a 3-2 vote. David and Stephanie Persin filed an appeal in response to the Planning Commission's decision. After the Planning Commission hearing, but before the City Council hearing, the Lopezes changed their mind regarding mediation. Two mediation meetings were held, on Wednesday, October 6r", and Monday, November 22nd, 2010. Ms. Mary Roberts, a former member of the Planning Commission, agreed to staffs request to act as the mediator and facilitated discussion for the meetings. The applicants (Rodney Lopez and Trina Lopez), two people from the "concerned neighbors" party (David Persin and Joe Perry), and staff attended the mediation meetings. The Perrys had expressed concern that the proposed second-story addition would reduce the sunlight on their property. In an attempt to address this concern during mediation, the Lopezes offered to pay for the construction of a skylight in the front room of the Perry residence. However, the Perrys and other concerned parties wanted the Lopezes to modify the configuration of the second story such that it was further away from their property and reduce the size of the second story to address their concerns. The mediation meetings resulted in further discussion between the applicants and the concerned neighbors, but did not result in a solution acceptable to all parties. Therefore, the project was heard by the City Council at the February 15, 2011 , meeting. The City Council denied the appeal and approved the proposed project subject to conditions, including the mitigation measures offered during mediation, one of which included the skylight. The Lopezes (or other parties) did not object to the language for the condition related to the skylight prior to, at, or after the City Council meeting. The condition is reflected as Condition number 8 in City Council Resolution 11-420 (attached to this staff report as Exhibit A). Staff reports (without attachments) for the City Council and Planning Commission hearings and meeting minutes for the City Council, Planning Commission, and Zoning Administrator hearings are attached to this report as Exhibit D and E, respectively. On November 2, 2011, the Perrys provided three bids for the skylight (attached to this report as Exhibit C) to the Community Development Department which were forwarded to the Lopezes for fulfillment of the condition. In response, the Lopezes expressed concern that the condition as written does not require the Perrys to use the funds to install a skylight and thus the funds could be used for something other than the intended purpose. Therefore, they applied to amend this condition with the subject application on December 2, 2011. Case No. PADR-2090, Lopez Planning Commission Page 2 of 6