PC 020911 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Amos replied that she did not have those numbers readily available. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Kong Susanto, appellant, stated that staff encouraged them to settle and compromise and presented many suggestions for lighting, higher window sills, opaque windows, planting trees in front of the window, and options other than opening a window on the south end wall, but the applicant rejected them. He commented that at the last hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved the application, and they felt that the City has not been sensitive to the privacy issue they raised so they appealed the decision to the Commission. He indicated that the distance from the window to the fence is approximately 9 to 11 feet, and the distance from the fence to their sliding door is 16 feet. He stated that a distance of 25 feet is very close, and opening a second-story window would definitely impact their privacy because the window would look into the primary areas of their home. He added that the distance between their own rear window and the neig backyard is at least 40 feet, which is twice the distance. Mr. Susanto stated that they also have second-story windows on three sides of their because the window is approximately 80 feet away. He noted that there are a lot of tall trees in their backyard which the previous owner planted as a screen to provide some privacy. He added that all the structures in their property were in place when they moved in eight years ago, and they had done no renovations or additions. Mr. Susanto noted that another important fact is that the egress is required only for the window but not to fix the damaged wall. He further noted that they also have a deck in the main patio area which would prevent them from planting trees for screening purposes. He added that installing a window without addressing the privacy issue would decrease the resale value of their house. Mr. Susanto then stated that other cities are very aware of privacy issues resulting from second-story windows and have guidelines and setback requirements in place for that purpose. He then read excerpts from the residential design guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the City of San Pablo. Mr. Susanto noted that City staff had suggested a proposal to plant three trees, and requested that staff discuss the species with the landscape architect. He stated that the proposed 15-gallon trees would be approximately five to six feet tall, which would not be as tall as the fence and would not help mitigate the privacy issue. He added that the growth rate of the proposed trees is one to one-and-a-half feet per year, which would take six to nine years to grow up to 13 to 14 feet to reach the middle of the four-foot tall window at a 12-foot elevation. He proposed that the height of the tree be ten feet so the wait time can be reduced by 50 percent or up to three or four years. He also offered PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 34 of 41