Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Staff analysis: No additional exterior lighting is being proposed with this project. <br /> <br />7. Architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to building's colors <br />and materials; and the design attention given to mechanical equipment or other utility hardware <br />on roof, ground or buildings. <br /> <br />Staff analysis: The architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood and the function of <br />design and relationship to the surroundings. The project proposes to use the same colors and <br />materials of the existing residence. No mechanical equipment or other utility hardware was pro- <br />posed with this project. <br /> <br />8. Integration of signs as part of architectural concept. <br /> <br />Staff analysis: No signage was proposed with this project. <br /> <br />9. Architectural concept of miscellaneous structures, streetfurniture, public art in relationship <br />to the site and landscape (Ord. 1612 S 2,1993; Ord. 1591,~ 2,1993). <br /> <br />Staff analysis: No miscellaneous structures, street furniture, or public art were proposed with <br />this project. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The proposed addition met the Municipal Code requirements for setbacks, height, and noor area <br />and, in staffs opinion, is well designed. As previously mentioned, the proposed house would be <br />approximately 6-feet feet lower than the maximum height (30-feet as measured from natural <br />grade to the mid point of the roof) and would be similar in height to the one-story homes, which <br />were recently constructed at approximately 22 feet in height at Lemoine Ranch Estates by Foot- <br />hill Road. The proposed addition height would be substantially lower than the maximum height <br />allowed, and would be more similar to what is typically required for a one-story house than for a <br />two-story house. <br /> <br />Staff is sympathetic to concerns regarding privacy, however as conditioned, please see Exhibit <br />B, staff believes that the addition would not result in negative impacts to the privacy of sur- <br />rounding properties. Staff believes this proposal has been designed to be compatible with the <br />existing neighborhood in both its architectural style and massing. There are no view easements <br />granted for the subject property or surrounding neighbors and there are not City or homeowner's <br />association restrictions in place to prevent second-story additions in this neighborhood. <br /> <br />Based on staffs analysis and conclusion statement, the Zoning Administrator supported the pro- <br />ject per the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. <br /> <br />PADR-1472 <br /> <br />50f7 <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Hearing <br />