Laserfiche WebLink
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br />a. PADR -2090, Rodney and Trina Lopez <br />Application for a modification to a previously approved Administrative <br />Design Review application (Case PADR -2090) for additions totaling <br />approximately 1,118 square feet at 6114 Homer Court to modify Condition <br />No. 8 of City Council Resolution 11 -420 regarding a skylight. Zoning for the <br />property is R -1 -6,500 (One - Family Residential) District. <br />Brian Dolan stated that Shweta Bonn is the planner assigned to this project, but <br />because of the nature of the issue and because he has had a lot of involvement in this <br />project and handled most of the dialogue regarding this issue, he would handle the <br />presentation and discussion on this item. <br />Mr. Dolan gave a brief background of the project, stating that it was a controversial <br />second -floor addition that was approved by the Zoning Administrator and then appealed <br />to the Planning Commission. He noted that mediation was suggested in the middle of <br />that process, but not everyone was interested. He continued that the Commission then <br />approved the proposal, which was subsequently appealed to the City Council. He <br />indicated that before the item went to the City Council, all the parties agreed to go to <br />mediation to resolve the issues. He noted that while the mediation was not successful, <br />a few ideas came up during the discussions regarding mitigating the impacts of the <br />addition. He further noted that while the neighbors essentially remained opposed to the <br />project and were aware that they were not going to prevail, they were interested in the <br />mitigation measures that came up in that dialogue. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the house is essentially 95 percent constructed: the structure has <br />been constructed, the exterior completely stuccoed with some detail work still to be <br />done, and some interior work possibly still to be completed. He explained that the <br />condition that has become a problem was where the Lopezes, the homeowners building <br />the addition, were to provide funding for the purpose of providing a skylight to the Perrys <br />who live next door because this construction would constrain the Perrys' view outside <br />and the light available to their front windows. <br />Mr. Dolan indicated that this condition was not included in the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation but was added to the City Council's recommendation as a condition to <br />address that issue. He added, however, that because of the way the condition was <br />written, different people interpreted the condition differently, and the issue came down <br />to whether or not the Perrys are obligated to put the skylight in before they get the <br />reimbursement from the Lopezes. He noted that there is the introductory sentence that <br />talks about what the purpose is, but there is no direct obligation outlined further on into <br />the condition for the Perrys to actually construct the skylight. He indicated that staff has <br />interpreted that the Perrys are not obligated to put the skylight in and this was the <br />understanding when the condition was written. He acknowledged that the condition can <br />be interpreted differently, and the Lopezes objected to staff's interpretation and asked <br />for a change in that condition. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 25, 2012 Page 4 of 19 <br />