12 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

homes' square footage and FAR. He said all mitigations and changes have added thousands to their budget, and while passionate concerns have been raised, their home addition is well designed that will add value to the neighborhood. He said the home is in compliance with all zoning codes, they meet or exceed all requirements for setbacks, height and FAR, and are requesting no variances. They have given several concessions to plant trees on the south side of the property, the bathroom windows will be reduced in size and raised overhead to address privacy, the single south facing bedroom window will be reduced in size, since there are no proposed windows on the second floor east side, there will be no privacy concerns for the Perry family, and they have given up Saturday construction work. They have tried to sit down with neighbors which he discussed as being initially rejected. He agreed they initially rejected mediation, but in October, met and offered several resolutions to arguments, which were all rejected. He presented an array slides showing views of the revised proposal from neighbor's homes which he said all address privacy, noise, light, and views. They regret plans have caused concerns, but believe that any stated negative impacts do not warrant preventing them the ability to enhance their property under established zoning guidelines. The appellants have verbally stated they will make the process last as long as possible, which they have succeeded in what is now approaching one year build season. He asked the Council take into consideration the expertise, professionalism, and approval of the Planning Department and Planning Commission decision, and the many letters of support in the community. There is precedence of 15 other two story homes and several are located in a cul-de-sac as well as one that is in the process of obtaining their building permit, which was approved with a setback variance without objection. They have offered many concessions, have spent two months in mediation, and feel they have always been responsible and have maintained their integrity throughout the process and requested the Council render a decision denying the appeal and upholding the original approval of their case with no additional requirements, or Option 2 in the packet. He clarified remaining issues regarding setbacks, videotaping and incidents, their offer to show their plans and arrange a visit with Councilmembers. Mayor Hosterman and Councilmember Cook-Kallio indicated they both drove by the property. Mr. Lopez also indicated that the belly band and the hip roofs were rejected by the appellants and this is why they did not show them in the pictures. However, he took a picture of a home down the street with a belly band and hip and gabled roof. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio referred to page 8, Figure 5, #7 at 6895 Heath Court that has 1030 square feet in a cul-de-sac and asked if this was similar in terms of shape and design of the lot. Mr. Dolan said it is a similar shaped lot, but staff does not have a graphic of how the property lines up to the rear of it. Councilmember Sullivan did not believe it was a similar situation, as it was a 9400-square-foot lot and at 26% FAR versus 40% FAR with a 6,000 square foot lot. EXCERPT: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, February 15, 2011 Page 3 of 6