03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Mayor Brown noted that shifting the house back would require more grading, which would also violate the Design Guidelines. Mr. Dommer explained that perhaps the proposed home is too large for the lot if it cannot completely conform to code. Nonetheless, he thought it could be done with some creative landscaping and grading. Vice Mayor Brown asked and Mr. Dommer confirmed that the appellant team would then also wish to control the potential for any vegetation to obscure their views. She said she understood that the original project proposal called for an 8,000 square -foot home, which the applicant reduced in part to address the appellant's concerns. Mr. Weinstein deferred to the applicant for specifics but said there were a few project iterations before reaching staff. Gary Monzo, appellant, said that he and his wife wish to convey the importance of this decision on their enjoyment of their home. He said he purchased his home in 1999 with the intent to remodel. As part of that process both the HOA and city planning staff held him to the strictest standards applicable to his lot, and he fully expected equitable treatment when the applicant submitted his own proposal. He said his requests over the last 2 years to meet with the applicant have almost always been met with silence. The sole exception was one meeting during which it became clear the applicant had no interest in reaching a compromise. He stressed that the appeal is about the design of the project, and not the applicant himself. He said he has always known the adjacent lot would be developed but that he fully expected the Design Guidelines to be followed and enforced. He provided staff with a copy of a 2012 letter from the city ensuring that the project would be reviewed in conjunction with the Design Guidelines, which has not occurred aside from the home size being reduced to meet the city's definition of a medium sized house. Mark Landau, architect for the applicant, said his team has made considerable effort to comply with both the HOA, neighbors' concerns and the overall process. This includes a considerable reduction in home size, relocation of the home to the rear of the site as far as the Design Guidelines would allow, an amended color scheme, and altered landscaping. He disagreed with Mr. Dommer's assertion that covered front entry should not be included when considering massing as it is an important feature that creates a stepped element from the first to second floor. He noted that the elevations shown do not reflect the fact that the front of the first floor is 3 feet lower than at the rear of the home. While this may not meet the definition that some have for a split - level, the lot is not steep enough within the building envelope to merit a traditional split - level. If one were to push the house back past the building envelope, the home would have no real rear yard. Vice Mayor Brown requested clarification on the roof color, which appeared red. Mr. Landau explained that it is actually a brownish clay roof. Councilmember Olson asked about the implications of moving the second story further back. Mr. Landau explained that using the appellant's depiction of a true split -level would actually add about 2,000 square feet and increase the first story footprint of the home, which would create size, grading, and rear yard issues. He also explained that the home design calls for a central staircase and that to shift the second story would disjoint the first and second story connection and require a major redesign. Councilmember Pentin said he drives through Golden Eagle regularly and is aware of a home around the corner from the subject site that has a huge portico as well as numerous porches and exterior stairways. He noted several other examples of homes in the neighborhood which, if porches were not City Council Minutes Page 9 of 18 June 2, 2015