PC 062806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that the requirement for the transom windows was often used to mitigate privacy issues. Staff had not taken Building Code requirements into consideration, nor was the removal of the westerly window considered at that time. Staff looked at how privacy concerns could be mitigated by using transom windows on the south side and full-sized windows on the east and west sides for light and air. Staff had not been able to evaluate ingress and egress issues at this point, which was a valid consideration. Tim Bennett, 784 East Angela Street, was not strongly opposed to the window on the west side of the room, but was strongly opposed to the size of the addition. He believed it should be pushed towazds the street and not towazds his yard. He did not agree with massive development in older neighborhoods and believed it should be curtailed by the City and the Planning Commission. He believed this project was too big, and suggested that some of the bedroom closets be made smaller. He believed the applicants should be more moderate in their expectations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox believed the only way to move to mediation was to uphold the appeal. Chairperson Arkin would like to see mediation done, possibly by a former Planning Commissioner, who would have the experience and objectivity to carry out the mediation. Commissioner Pearce believed it was important to provide an incentive to go to mediation instead of denying the appeal. She did not want the Planning Commission to appeaz to take a position in this matter if it would be going to mediation. Chairperson Arkin stated that his preference would be to make a motion to forward this matter directly to City Council. Commissioner Blank inquired whether it was important that the Planning Commission uphold or deny the appeal with future mediation in mind and added that he would like the phrase "without prejudice" added to the motion in order to cleazly state that it was not intended to be a negative vote against the project. Ms. Decker requested clarification and noted that if the appeal were upheld, the proposed project would be denied. Ms. Harryman replied that the Planning Commission is chazged with the duty of making a decision one way or the other and cannot forward the matter to the City Council without doing so. Legally, it did not matter whether the Commission upheld or denied the appeal as long as one of the parties appealed the decision and that mediation was required by the Planning Commission should the project be appealed to the City Council. The mediation !'~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 28, 2006 Page 8 of 26