02 - Laserfiche WebLink

property improvements including a 297-square-foot single-story addition, 558-square-foot second-floor addition, rear-facing second-floor balcony, 5 new dormer windows, new second-floor doors and windows, and a new roof over the existing front porch. The project was reviewed and approved at a Zoning Administrator's hearing. At that hearing, the Zoning Administrator explored various options to help mitigate privacy concerns that were raised by the applicants' neighbors to the west, Jamison and Elizabeth Cummings, and ultimately added a condition of approval requiring the applicants to install 4 evergreen trees near the western property line and to maintain an existing mulberry tree to help screen the addition and balcony. The project was subsequently appealed to the Planning Commission by the Cummings, who did not feel that the trees would provide an effective screen and requested that the balcony be removed from the project. The Commission reviewed the project and, finding that it would result in privacy impacts on the Cummings, approved the project minus the balcony. The Commission also expressed concern with setting a precedent of allowing second-floor rear-facing balconies in the Birdland neighborhood, which they felt would be out of character with the general neighborhood. The applicants, Kursad and Zarina Kiziloglu, have appealed the Planning Commission's decision and are requesting that the Council approve the project with the balcony. Mr. Otto reviewed the site and project specifications, stating that the subject site is an 8,760-square- foot lot located on the south side of Hummingbird Road with a rear property line that backs up to Valley Avenue. The Cummings' property is located immediately to the west. The proposed project would maintain existing front and side yard setbacks but reduce the rear yard setback from 59' 8" to 51' 9". The western side of the proposed balcony, which is 23' 5" wide by 6' 2" deep for a total of 155 square feet, would be set back approximately 25' from the western property line. The additions would total 855 square feet, resulting in a total of 3,393 square feet and a total floor area ratio of 38.7%. The height of the residence would not change. He presented several renderings of both front and rear elevations. He explained that the Cummings have expressed concern that the balcony would afford views into their rear yard and bedroom windows, thus unfairly impacting their privacy. He presented several photos depicting existing views out of the one of the applicants' rear bedroom windows which is similarly located, albeit a bit closer to the Cummings, to the proposed balcony. These photos included the mulberry tree and 4 evergreen trees that the applicants installed shortly before the Planning Commission hearing. The primary point of contention with the project is the rear balcony, which the applicants are requesting approval for and which the Cummings continue to express privacy concerns over despite the vegetative screening. An additional point of contention relates to Condition of Approval No. 7 which requires the 4 new evergreen plantings and preservation of the mulberry tree. The condition also requires that a restrictive covenant be recorded to ensure the trees are maintained and replaced should one fail. The Kiziloglus are requesting removal of this condition while the Cummings wish for it to remain, even if the balcony is not approved. Staff notes that the condition was written to apply to both the addition and the balcony and therefore recommends that it be retained regardless of the status of the balcony. However, staff would also recommend that references to the balcony be removed if it is not approved and that the condition be modified to clarify that the 4 evergreen trees have already been planted. Mr. Otto stated that staff believes the Planning Commission action is appropriate and will result in a project that adequately mitigates the privacy concerns expressed by the Cummings. Staff also believes that approving the project without the balcony is a fair and reasonable compromise that allows the applicants to undertake the vast majority of their project while still taking the neighbor's concerns into account. Therefore staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval with the changes noted to Condition No. 7. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 August 18,2015