SR 06:245 - Laserfiche WebLink

her property because the second-story would block sunlight from her side yard and house in the aftemoon. She feels that this is an infringement and would include negative visual impacts of decreased light received in her windows during the winter. Ms. Wensel continues by saying that the shadowing would increase mold and moisture problems in the rooms directly affected during the wet winter months, she says this problem already exists and will be exacerbated, and the current landscaping will also be affected (please see the shadow study found in Exhibit A). Ms. Wensel stated a less serious negative impact from the addition would be visual. She stated that she would experience a change in character when occupying the backyard because the second story would reduce the spacious, tranquil, seemingly rural and private nature of her backyard. Ms. Wensel stated Mr. Imperiale, the neighbor directly behind Ms. Wensel, has stated that if the project is approved he intends to build a 7- foot tall solid fence where an existing 5- foot deer fence is. Ms. Wensel feels that this would also cause serious shading of a greater expanse of her landscaping and because of the difference in elevation between Mr. Imperiale's and her property the net visual effect will seem worse. Ms. Wensel also feels that a potential effect from the proposal is a reduction in efficiency and capacity of solar panels should they be installed in the future. She feels that with gas and electricity costs rising, solar panels are becoming appealing, but could become economically untenable due to the shading. Ms. Wensel feels that the story poles and shading analysis were inadequate in revealing the true impact on her property. She believes that the story poles did not accurately reflect the true elevations of the proposed addition due to errors on the original architectural plans, as placement of windows in the second-story were changed due to unanticipated privacy infringement upon the Angela Street property directly behind the Knights'. Ms. Wensel stated that in trying to be a good neighbor, she has expressed concern but not opposition to the project. However, after careful consideration of the consequences the addition will create with the resulting change in fencing behind her she must oppose the project. She believes that her home will be damper and darker during the winter, existing landscaping would have to be relocated and replaced with species that are more shade tolerant at her expense, and the potential benefit of solar power will be diminished should she ever choose to take advantage of it. Staff would like to note that the shading analysis that Ms. Wensel refers to in her letter is similar to, but is not, the shading analysis that is included in the plans submitted before the Planning Commission. Also, the story poles that Ms. Wensel is referring too were constructed in March and are not the story poles that have been reconstructed by the property owners in May. 2. Dennis and Barbara Georgatos, 790 East Angela, are the appellants and are not supportive of the second-story. They have expressed concerns with the second-story blocking their view, devaluing their home, and reducing their privacy. The Georgatos' home is located directly behind, and elevated approximately 12-feet above, the subject property with a setback of approximately 35-feet from the shared rear property line. The distance between the Georgatos' home and the addition is approximately 60-feet. There are also a few mature trees along rear of the two properties. The Georgatos' feel that the proposed addition is not compatible with the neighborhood and that the second-story windows would infringe on their rear yard, family room, and bedroom privacy. They feel that transom windows, as shown on the plans, and adding additional landscaping would not alleviate their privacy concerns. They do not wish to look at a second story addition while in their home and backyard area and would like to maintain the current view and property value of their home, please see Exhibit L. They feel that the story poles that were constructed in March were inaccurate and did not fully portray the effects they feel the second story will have on their property. The Georgatos' are fine with the single-story addition; however do not feel that there are any mitigation measures that would suffice for the approval of the second story. If the Planning PAP-93, AppealofPADR-1472 Planning Commission Page 90f 15