12 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

PAP-149, David & Stephanie Persin (PADR-2090, Rodney & Trina Lopez) Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an application for Administrative Design Review to construct an approximately 80-square-foot single story addition and an approximately 1,038-square-foot second-story addition to the existing residence located at 6114Homer Court Brian Dolan gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding an appeal of an application for an 80 square foot single story addition and 1,038 square foot second story addition. He presented a site plan, existing and proposed elevations, issues relating to visuals and non-agreement to mediation, visuals showing viewpoints and shadows, examples of two story homes in Val Vista, evaluation of the project size showing that in the immediate neighborhood the proposal would be the second largest house and the highest FAR. He reviewed appellant concerns regarding lot configuration and CC&R's which state that no building shall exceed 2.5 stories in height. He discussed the mediation process held on October 6 and November 22, 2010 and proposed concessions. Over the last few days, over 21 emails were received in support of the project, and a revised Condition 7 is proposed for flexibility of landscape species. The Council's options are to: 1) uphold the appeal and deny the proposed project, 2) deny the appeal and approve the project as proposed subject to conditions, 3) deny the appeal but to add mitigations offered by the Lopez' during the mediation process, or 4) continue to work on the proposal. David Persin, appellant, on behalf of three different families said the applicants fill their supporting documentation with accusations which decreases their credibility. He spoke of statements regarding placement of a trampoline in their backyard, and the fact that the applicant's backyard is less than 8 feet from their rear side bedrooms is the dispute. He added information about never exceeding noise levels, 9:00 p.m. curfews during school nights, and said the only numbers provided for the current project and neighborhood comparables those provided by the applicant to the City. The chart of mitigations, compromises, concessions and considerations positions the applicants as having done all they can do to compromise and this has led him to the conclusion that there is always more that can be done. Mr. Persin asked that the Council postpone making a decision to provide time for each member to visit the applicant and appellant homes and form their own opinions, which is critical to make a fair and representative position. They asked to make a decision based on creating compromise which may involve redrafting of plans for a smaller second story addition, combined with a partial first story addition or other revision. He acknowledges this is not what the applicants want, but they similarly do not want any second story addition at all and asked for an actual compromise and not simply cosmetic fixes. Councilmember McGovern read requirements of the 1969 document, Condition #6 and questioned whether it was assumed that a review process by a Committee would be conducted. EXCERPT: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, February 15, 2011 Page 1 of 6