SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

779 Mirador Court PADR-t475 February 15,2006 Neighbor Meeting them. Staff stated that there are exceptions to the development standards that would allow them to encroach into their rear yard setback, but that a percentage of open space has to remain. Staff stated the proposed single story addition has not reached the maximum allowed encroaclunent in the rear yard, however they may be close. The applicants stated that they understand the neighbors privacy concerns because they have them as well. The neighborhood has a terraced effect and their house sits below all of their houses. The neighbors have a line of sight into their house and backyard currently. The applicants felt that their addition would not be setting a precedent for the rest of the neighborhood because there are other two story homes within the area. The applicants stated they would not be going the full 30-feet allowed and that the addition would remain at the proposed 24-feet (at the highest point ofthe root). Staff summarized the concerns/comments that the neighbor's made and offered some suggestions as followed: . Privacy- higher windowsills, opaque glass, and vegetation for screening. . Views- staff stated that the City does not have a view preservation ordinance for private views; yet suggested eliminating some of the square-footage along the side. . Lighting- staff felt that without a shadowing diagram a determination could not be made about the current and proposed lighting affects. Winter solstice indicates the most shadowing effect and that the neighbors located above the proposed addition may not have an affect on their daily sunlight. Staff stated that the proposed addition would more than likely have a shadowing affect on the neighbor next door. . Devaluation of homes- staff didn't suggest or conunent regarding this. . Consistency with the neighborhood- staff stated that there are other homes in the neighborhood that have second story additions and felt that this would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff suggested story poles or a photomontage so that the neighbors could better assess how the addition will look. The applicants agreed to construct story poles and their architect agreed to do a line of sight diagram. The applicants were open to redesigning the house to eliminate some square-footage on the second floor and also changing windows and planting trees for screening. Staff asked that once the story poles were constructed that she be contacted so that she may take pictures. Staff stated that she would also contact the neighbors for a site visit to take pictures of the story poles from their property. The neighbors didn't agree to any of the suggestions made by staff and stated that they would think about it and either contact staff of any decision or wait until the ZA hearing on March 9 for further comments/questions/concerns. 2