24 - Laserfiche WebLink

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed residence is a two-story home which includes a 4,275-square-foot first floor, a 2,566-square-foot second floor, and 1,020 square feet of total garage area designed as a single four-car garage. The proposed home will include a total of five bedrooms and seven bathrooms. Total proposed floor area for the residence is 6,841 square feet. The proposed building height is 32 feet, 2 inches, as measured using the height definition within the Design Guidelines and consistent with the maximum building height of 35 feet allowed for this site by the Design Guidelines. The home will include decorative stone veneer along the entire first floor along all elevations as well as stucco along the second story elevations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on March 25, 2015. At that meeting, two neighbors as well as the project architect spoke. Jim Rogers, a Golden Eagle resident, spoke in favor of the project and the proposed grading. Mr. Monzo spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Monzo's concerns are described in Attachment 5, Exhibit D of the Planning Commission staff report as well as within his appeal letter included in Attachment 3. Mr. Monzo's original concerns included the home's lack of horizontal character, second story massing, on-site grading, the location of the home on the lot in relation to the street and the adjacent home, and the obstruction of views from adjacent homes. In addition to Mr. Monzo's original concerns, at the public hearing Mr. Monzo also stated concerns regarding his belief that the project rendering was deceptive in showing the project's true impacts. The Planning Commission discussed Mr. Monzo's concerns and felt that the design, location and grading of the proposed home were appropriate for the neighborhood and consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines. In regard to the preservation of views, the Commissioners were sympathetic to Mr. Monzo's concerns; however, they felt that the results of requesting the applicant to redesign the home, as suggested by Mr. Monzo, would not outweigh the impacts created by the redesign and shifting of the home on the aesthetic character and topography of the site. The Commissioners felt that shifting the home further to the rear of the property and further upslope would result in additional grading and disturbance to the natural topography. Additional concerns were also raised regarding whether the HOA would be supportive of any additional changes to the project. Commissioner Nagler felt that he did not have enough information on the design evolution of the home that was reviewed by the HOA preceding submittal to the City, or impacts of potential alternatives and, therefore, voted against the project approval. Staff noted that all HOA review is independent of the City review process and not required as part of the City application. The Commission agreed with staffs recommendation and approved the DR by a 4-1 vote. For additional background information, please refer to the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting minutes in Attachment 4 and Planning Commission staff report in Attachment 5. Page 5 of 9