CCMIN041911 - Laserfiche WebLink

property, and said that she should not be denied one window on an otherwise solid wall simply because they have so many. Ms. Leroudier said the proposed screen is unacceptable to her family as it result in elimination of their tomato garden, a fig and avocado tree and completely obscuring the light for any future first-story window in that location. She stated that the number and size of the proposed trees could not develop a viable root system in that little space and would present a danger in high winds. She stated concern with what she called the City's unique lack of specific policy regarding second-story window permits on existing homes. Kong Susanto stated that the conditions described by the appellant were present when they purchased their home. He said the photos presented by the appellant were misleading in terms of scale and said he had had no view of the Leroudier's main patio or family room from his home. The applicant has two existing windows in the bedroom in question, both of which could be made egress compliant and are currently obscured by overgrown trees. The appellant has rebuffed all efforts at compromise and the existing bad design, regardless of which party's home it is on, is not an argument for poor planning in the present. He acknowledged the appellant's attempt to do something positive for the family but said it creates negative impacts for his own, and considered the screenings recommended by staff to be an acceptable compromise. Susan Spangler said she is disturbed by the City's lack of printed guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable location for this type of window and that the City's planning and permit process seems to be complaint based. She suggested that since the appellants have not requested any sort of variance, it is arbitrary and unreasonable to place approval of the permit in the hands of neighbors. There are dozens of examples of second-story windows facing neighboring homes and yards in this neighborhood, many of which appear to be additions and do not include trees or other screening barriers. She asked the Council to approve the permit without condition. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sullivan acknowledged the arguments of both the appellant and the Susanto family. He said every effort should be made to reach a compromise that satisfies the needs of both parties, and option 3 seems reasonable. Councilmember Thorne said it is truly unfortunate when neighborhood issues reach this level of contention. He said he had not been presented with any information that would cause him to overturn the decision of the Commission. Councilmember McGovern asked if Ms. Spangler's assertion regarding the permit process was correct. Ms. Stern said no, the administrative design review process is outlined in the ordinance. Councilmember McGovern asked if Ms. Stern was aware of the Susanto's loss of privacy when she approved the permit. Ms. Stern confirmed. She explained that she made a judgment based on her findings at the time, which were that the Susantos have an existing deck that overlooks onto neighboring properties and that there are existing windows of a similar nature throughout the neighborhood. She stated that privacy is a consideration in evaluating this type of proposal and in this particular case, she felt that the expectation of privacy in that neighborhood was consistent with having this window allowed. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 12 April 19,2011