SR 06:210 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving Case PADR-1542, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. SUMMARY At issue is whether administrative design review approval to construct a first and second story addition to Mr. Rhoades' home should be upheld. After two public hearings the appellants have been the only parties to raise objection to the project; nine neighbors have written a letter of support for the project. The Planning Commission approved the application ( 4-1 vote) per the conditions approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Stantons have appealed the Planning Commission decision. Staff believes that the proposed project is well designed, aesthetically pleasing, and will blend in well with the neighborhood. Additionally, staff believes that the concerns raised by the appellants have been addressed and mitigated by the conditions of approval attached in Exhibit B. Staff therefore believes project approval should be upheld. Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council: BACKGROUND On May 9, 2006, the applicant, Robert Sweeney, submitted plans on behalf of homeowner Jim Rhoades to construct an approximately 1,224-square-foot, second-floor addition and an approximately 120-square-foot, first-floor addition to an existing 1,680-square-foot residence located at 3227 Anastacia Court. Pursuant to the administrative design review process, staff notified the surrounding property owners of the subject site on May 10, 2006. In response to the notification, Carol and Steve Stanton, owners of the property at 3116 Joanne Circle located to the north (rear) of the subject site, sent an e-mail to staff expressing their opposition to the proposed project and requested a Zoning Administrator hearing. The Stantons stated that the proposed project, if approved, would compromise their property value, add excessive noise and dust during the construction phase, and limit the sunlight and open space at the back of their property. The Stantons were under the impression that at the time this development was constructed, it was the intent of the developer to line up single-story homes behind each other in order to minimize privacy concerns. The Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing was held on June 8, 2006. After presentation of the project by staff and comments by the applicants and the concerned neighbors, the ZA continued the hearing until June 22, 2006 in order for staff to visit both the subject property as well as the concerned neighbors' property. At the June 22, 2006 hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved Case No. PADR-1543, subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit B. The Stantons submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's action on July 7, 2006. In the appeal, the appellants restated the issue of privacy, noise, and drainage impacts they raised in the Zoning Administrator Hearing. Staff addressed the appellants concerns in the Planning Commission staff report and subsequent memo to the Planning Commission (please see Exhibits SR:06:21O Page 2