14 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 10 PAP-123. Greg and Lisa Johnston. Appellants IPDR-715, S.J.. Applicant) Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of an application for design review for rear yard improvements at the existing residence located at 927 Montevino Drive. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District. Ms. Amos presented the staff report and described the background, scope, key components, and layout of the project, using a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Fox stated that she appreciated the timeline of events. She indicated that she did not understand how the over-the-counter approval occurred without staff knowing that re-grading applications were required to go to City Council. Additionally, she inquired how staff, knowing that re-grading applications are required to go to Council, can make a determination that this case does not need to go to the City Council and could be approved through the Zoning Administrator process. Mr. Dolan replied that staff made a mistake in approving the re-grading over the counter. He noted, however, that even if staff had checked the files of the original approval, staff would not have been able to locate this requirement, as it was not included in the original conditions of approval for the project. He added that staff has looked through numerous files for a reference to this requirement and found one in a resolution for a similar type of re-grading application for another property in the area. With respect to why staff did not go to Council directly, Mr. Dolan stated that this condition was made a long time ago and that its origin was somewhat nebulous. He indicated that the former Planning Director was optimistic at the time that there was a resolution that could be reached between all parties, who agreed to allow the Zoning Administrator's review and approval. He noted that neighborhood disagreements are difficult for the Planning Commission and even harder for the City Council and that the preferred approach is for staff to attempt to resolve conflicts at the lowest level possible if staff has any basis for it at all, Commissioner Fox inquired if the appellant was required to pay fees to proceed through the appeal process even if the application was originally supposed to go to the City Council. Ms. Amos said yes and explained that even if the applicant had filed to go to City Council, staff would still have rendered a decision for which the appellant would also have been required to file an appeal and undergo the process similar to any other appeal. She added that the cost of the appeal was $6.25. Commissioner Olson noted that he recalled reading in prior Minutes that there was a requirement placed on this project that the CC&R's include a restriction on re-grading and that it should be handled at the City Council level. He inquired if staff checked the CC&R's to see if it applied to this area. Ms. Amos replied that the condition was added in the Tract Map conditions of approval as Condition No. 16, which is included as an attachment to the staff report. She noted that the CC&R's stated that re-grading would be reviewed by the City's Building and Safety Division. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 1 of 25