Laserfiche WebLink
another suggestion for compromise and offered to share the cost, up to $200, of making <br />the egress of the existing window on the other side of the house up to Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Susanto stated that there is no absolute right of use in a community with <br />homeowners associations, and where there are no homeowners associations, the right <br />of use falls back on the City planner. He added that the City must act as fairly as <br />possible, make careful decisions, and take privacy issues into account. He indicated <br />that they are not asking for absolute privacy; however, the window would look right into <br />their main area of daily activities. He stated that he finds the proposed conditions in the <br />staff report would work for both sides, but approval of the window without condition is <br />something they cannot willingly accept due to its many negative impacts. <br /> <br />onnor asked Mr. Susanto if his family has lived in the home for eight <br />years and if the second-floor addition and the deck were done by the previous owned. <br /> <br />Mr. Susanto said yes. <br /> <br />Catharine Pranoto, appellant, added that the deck also includes an outdoor Jacuzzi. <br /> <br />Frederic Leroudier, applicant, stated that they had a situation where water was coming <br />inside the house and needed to be fixed as soon as possible because there was mold <br />and dry rot. He stated that as part of the plan, they thought it would be a good idea to <br />add the window. He added that because they understood there could be impacts on <br />privacy on their neighbors, they discussed the plan with their neighbor, whose initial <br />reaction was positive, but later retracted. <br /> <br />Mr. Leroudier stated that they tried to ascertain whether there was a privacy issue and <br />provided pictures to show that in most cases there would be none. He noted that <br />privacy is always relative, as they can see the neighbors on their raised deck, and they <br />did not feel that what they were proposing would affect privacy. He stated that he felt <br />their request was fair and normal, considering that there are dozens of houses in the <br />neighborhood with second- <br />windows. He added that they do not see any new points or information to overturn <br /> <br /> <br />Yiping Leroudier, applicant, stated that their case is not a precedent. She presented a <br />map of adjacent properties in the Hansen Park and Pleasanton Valley neighborhoods <br />which displayed a number of homes with second-story windows looking down into the <br />sideyards of one-story homes. <br /> <br />Mr. Leroudier stated that they have been waiting for three months now and cannot use <br />their room due to the work to be done. He requested that the Commission make a <br />decision as soon as possible. <br /> <br />Mrs. Leroudier presented the floor plan of the house and pictures of the window to be <br />installed. She stated that the neighbors have a large sliding door on the south side of <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 35 of 41 <br /> <br />