24 - Laserfiche WebLink

addressed prior to submitting a formal application to the City. The neighbors reviewed and signed the proposed elevation drawing acknowledging that they did not have issues with the proposed window (please refer to Exhibit C). Knowing that the neighbors were not concerned with their proposal, Mrs. Leroudier submitted an application for Administrative Design Review to install a new second -story window on the south elevation of their home. Prior to public notification cards being sent to adjacent property owners of the Administrative Design Review application, staff was contacted by Catherine Pranoto, the Leroudiers' immediate south side neighbor, stating her retraction of support for the proposed window. Mrs. Pranoto acknowledged that she initially did not have concerns with the Leroudiers' request, however, she now felt that the window would create privacy concerns as the window would have a direct line of sight into her living room and kitchen, her family's primary "activity" areas. Staff asked if Mrs. Pranoto could support the window if landscape screening, opaque glass, and /or a higher window sill were required. Mrs. Pranoto was not agreeable to opaque glass because she believed the window could be replaced in the future and that even with opaque glass, the window could be opened, allowing someone to look into her windows. However, she was agreeable to having a higher window sill, so long as the sill height was 6 -feet from the finished second floor. Mrs. Pranoto was not opposed to landscaping; however, she felt that it would not mitigate her privacy concerns. Staff approached the Leroudiers with the possibility of providing landscaping, opaque glass, and /or a higher window sill. The Leroudiers were not agreeable to using opaque glass or a higher window sill because they wanted as much natural light as possible (please see Exhibit D). Furthermore, they were informed by their contractor that the proposed dimensions of the window could not be reduced in size (Exhibit E). The proposed window would be located within an existing second -floor bedroom that has two existing windows along the east elevation. However, the two existing windows do not meet current building code standards for ingress /egress. Staff confirmed with the Building Inspector that if the two existing windows do not meet egress requirements, any new window would be required to meet the minimum dimensions for egress within the bedroom (please refer to Exhibit F). The Building Inspector noted that the installation of a window is not required, but that if a window were installed it would be required to meet the rninimum dimensions for egress because the other windows do not. Since the window sill height could not be changed and neither party was interested in opaque glass or landscaping, a Zoning Administrator Hearing was scheduled. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARINGS At a public hearing on December 21, 2010, staff presented the Administrative Design Review application to the Zoning Administrator, Janice Stern, and discussed the neighbors' privacy concerns and outlined the mitigation measures that were presented to both parties prior to the request of a Zoning Administrator hearing. The appellants restated their privacy concerns with the proposal and felt that since the room already had windows, the Leroudiers could use additional lamps /lighting fixtures if their intent was to have more light within the room. The PAP -151, Appeal of PADR -2138 Planning Commission 2 of 7