SR 06:210 - Laserfiche WebLink

approximately 73% of the existing first floor building footprint and approximately 68% of the proposed first floor building footprint. ANALYSIS Administrative design review applications for residential additions of this nature are re- viewed for conformance with the site development standards and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The subject property is located in the R-I-7500 (Single Family Residen- tial) zoning district. As outlined in the table below, the proposed project adheres to all of the zoning district's site development standards. Standards for R-1-7500 Reauired Proposed F.A. R. <40% 40% Side Yard Setback >5ft 10ft (existing) Combined Side Yard Set- ~ 14 ft 21 ft (existing) back Front Yard Setback ~ 23 ft 23 ft (existing) Rear Yard Setback: ~ 20 ft 29 ft (existing) Height ~ 30 ft 28 ft Carol and Steve Stanton e-mailed their opposition to the project planner on May 16, 2006. The Stantons own and currently rent out the home located at 3116 Joanne Circle, The Stantons' home is located to the north (rear) of the Rhoades' residence. The Stantons believe that the proposed project, if approved, would compromise their property value, add excessive noise and dust during the construction phase, and limit the sunlight, open space, and privacy at the back of their property, In the public hearings and subsequent site visit, the Stantons also stated that they did not feel the proposed addition would be compatible with the neighborhood-although they did concede that the proposed addition was attractive-and they felt they would be finan- cially impacted because their current tenant may vacate due to construction noise and loss of privacy, The Stantons reiterated their concerns in their appeal letter dated, "Received July 7, 2006," see Exhibit D. All concerns listed in the appeal letter were addressed in the ZA hearing on June 22, 2006. Mr. Stanton, however, was not in attendance during this hear- ing; only Mrs. Stanton represented the appellants at the hearing. The Stantons' concerns along with staffs analysis follows. The appeal letter emphasized the impacts the proposed second story addition would have on the "privacy, open space and protection" of the Stanton property, In particular, the Stantons note that the second story balcony, the 4-foot wide by 5-foot high windows, and the glass sliding door will negatively impact the Stanton property's "private and per- Item 6.d, PAP-97/PADR-1542 Page 3 0[9 July 26, 2006