11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Other options that could be considered by Council include: uphold the appeal (therefore granting the appellants' requested approval of the current proposal subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment 1.C.); or uphold the appeal and approve the project with modified conditions differing from those listed in Attachment 1.C. An iteration of the last option could include directing the applicant/appellant to undertake further design revisions with staff. FINANCIAL STATEMENT No fiscal impact to the City or public services is anticipated. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, the applicants/appellants submitted an Administrative Design Review ("ADR") application to: (1) convert an existing unconditioned loft (attic space) into a second-story addition (including four new bedrooms); and (2) increase the roof height of the existing residence from 20 feet to 25 feet. Two Heritage trees were also proposed for removal as an ancillary request to the ADR application. After the ADR public notifications were sent, Glen and Shoni Johnson (property owners/neighbors at 3564 Yellowstone Court) and Bob Wittig (property owner of 3543 Yellowstone Court) contacted staff and indicated that they had concerns regarding the project and the potential impacts to their homes and neighborhood. Their concerns focused on privacy (particularly the presence and location of new second-story windows), public health and safety (criminal activity occurring at the residence), and the impacts of adding four additional bedrooms to an existing four-bedroom residence. Zoning Administrator Hearing (May 25, 2017) On May 25, 2017, a Zoning Administrator hearing was held on the project. The hearing was attended by the Robles (applicants/appellants), the Robles' contractor, and approximately 15 members of the public including the Johnsons, Mr. Wittig, and other nearby residents (please refer to Attachment 1.A.4 for hearing minutes). At the hearing, the Zoning Administrator asked the applicants/appellants to provide more detail on their motivation for constructing additional bedrooms, their history at the property (including the more recent history surrounding the police activity and calls for service), and their willingness to modify the project and/or provide mitigation for the project impacts based on neighborhood concerns. The applicants/appellants and their contractor Joe Cravotta indicated that they had multiple grandchildren living with them in the residence and that those children were approaching ages that necessitated them sleeping in separate rooms. The applicants/appellants also indicated that their adult children, and associates of their adult children, had stayed at the residence for extended periods of time in the recent past. The applicants/appellants further explained that the police activity and calls for service were related to warrants for one of their adult children, but also because of neighbors calling in code violations or perceived code violations. Lastly, the applicants/appellants indicated they were open to providing mitigation for the project impacts, such as a vegetative screen and frosted glass in all of the proposed second-story windows; however, they were reluctant to modify the project in a way that would compromise the interior layout. The applicants/appellants also Page 2 of 11