3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Privacy Concerns The appellant also raised concerns regarding impacts to privacy, both from windows that would be overlooking their home, and potential views from an open stairway. To address these concerns, the applicant made modifications to the project including: • Windows on the west elevation were revised to increase the sill height to be 5 feet above the floor. This height would avoid residents of the ADU easily looking into the adjoining residents' yard. • Addition of a full-height screen wall on the west side of the stairway, which would block views from the stairway, landing areas, and kitchen window directly into the adjoining residents' home or yard. The ZA found these modifications (see Figure 7) would preclude any overlooking of the neighboring property, and avoid infringing on the neighbor's privacy. Figure 7: Design Revisions (windows and screenwall) rte . -- --- _ EMIo lo LEI - — — mu -� -_= - 'll�lll staitmy ---- ❑000 000❑ i110`�il�,,�, behind F— l�lll�i ii��,- DOOR DOOO �,l�l screedwalY Original Design Revised Design Alternative Locations for ADU The appellant has suggested that other locations for the ADU should have been considered, particularly a detached structure in the rear yard, with access to Royal Creek Court. The applicant has indicated this change would not be acceptable because the unit, which is to be occupied by a family member, must be connected to and integrated into their home. As outlined above, the addition as proposed would conform to applicable development standards and, in staff's view, would meet all of the relevant design guidelines. Staff further notes there is at least one other example of a second story ADU approved in the Pheasant Ridge development (at 7315 Huntswood Court), and similarly scaled second-story additions are commonly approved throughout the city. In light of all these factors, the addition reflects a reasonable and appropriate modification to the home, and would be beyond the scope of the design review process to compel such a significant revision to the project. Conclusion The appellants' concerns are recognized and appreciated, particularly the second story addition and stairs would be a change in conditions from those that have existed since they purchased the home and would increase the mass and bulk of the existing home in relationship to their property. However, the PUD approval for Pheasant Ridge does not prohibit P19-0130 Planning Commission 14 of 15 icable standards', and outcomes of the shadow study, the ZA found the design and massing of the addition to be acceptable. However, the exterior stairway was redesigned. The original design included a single flight of stairs running the length of the garage wall. Based on comments, it was modified to include a As previously noted,the project site is located in a PUD district where the underlying PUD requires a side-yard setback of 10 feet(one side)and 20 feet(combined).The existing home,as constructed, is set back 15 feet from the west property line at its closest point,a larger setback than the standards would require. The proposed addition would be built directly above the existing garage and would maintain the existing building setback. P19-0130 Planning Commission 11 of 15