03 - Laserfiche WebLink

story is set back from the street. He showed a project rendering noting a second story setback of 10 feet from the footprint of the first story on the eastem (street facing) and southem (facing appellant) sides, thus focusing the feature away from Golden Eagle Way and the appellant's home. While staff believes this meets the intent of the guidelines, they do not want to diminish the value of views from the appellant's home. Mr. Weinstein showed several photos depicting the expansive views of the southeast hills as well as Mt. Diablo from the appellant's home. He shared a slide depicting the approximate view shed of Mt. Diablo from the appellant's front and side facing windows, noting that this view is now at least partially obstructed by existing vegetation on the project site and would be almost totally obstructed by the project. She shared another image of the appellant's combined view shed from a slightly different perspective, from which Mt. Diablo would be partially affected by not the vast majority of the hillside view. From its earliest interactions with the applicant team to start exploring relocating the project to reduce impacts to the appellant's view, staff found that the project site's physical characteristics constrain moving the building envelope identified in the Design Guidelines. In addition to the existing swale and vegetation along the northern portion of the site, the site's increasing slope present considerable challenges. Staff feels that rotating the building either clockwise or counterclockwise could affect both the swale and cluster of vegetation and moving the building envelope further back into the site would increase the amount of grading required. Staff therefore concluded that, aside from shrinking the buidling footprint, there was little room for design solutions to address these appellant's concerns. The Planning Commission reached a similar conclusion with a 4 -1 vote at the first appeal hearing. Mr. Weinstein noted that the dissenting vote focused primarily on a desire for a better understanding of the alternate design solutions that could be used to alelviate the appellant's view concems but did not necessarily express an assumption that such a solution existed. The proposed project was approved by both the HOA and Planning Commission based on its compliance with development regulations on the site which specify physical development standards such as setbacks, building height and floor area ratio. Staff believes that the project is reasonably compliant with the Design Guidelines, especially in the context of a suggested building envelope and the physical site constraints. Staff is sensitive to the appellant's design to preserve the entirety of his hillside views but recommends that the Council deny the appeal. Councilmember Narum asked and Mr. Weinstein confirmed that there are no view easements on any of the lots in question. Councilmember Olson asked and Mr. Weinstein confirmed that, with its existing building footprint, the proposed home could not be rotated without violating some of the existing vegetation and/or swale. It was also asked and confirmed that staff feels that preserving the vegetation is a fundamental component of the Design Guidelines. Councilmember Olson requested clarification of how the appellant's view of Mt. Diablo would be affected. Mr. Weinstein demonstrated how the peak of the mountain would be obstructed, with perhaps a small portion of the lower elevation still visible. Vice Mayor Brown noted that the photos provided depict the existing view shed of Mt. Diablo as somewhat limited to begin with, with one including a view of the appellant's garage and the other requiring a person to essentially press their face to the glass and crane their head to the site. She also noted that the existing vegetation appears to be blocking a good portion of the view now and, if allowed to grow, could ultimately block it entirely. City Council Minutes Page 7of18 June2,2015