03 - Laserfiche WebLink

counted in massing as the appellant asserted, he would struggle to understand how they complied with the split -level directive as well. Katherine Cunliffe, Toyon Court, said her home sits directly between a sightline of both the applicant's and appellant's homes. She said she struggled with the double -edged sword that is increasing a setback and preserving views versus minimizing grading, both of which are discussed in the Design Guidelines. She said the applicant appears to have made compromise after compromise and the outstanding issue appears to be of views from a side window of the appellant's home. She noted that her own view of the hills was lost when Mr. Monzo's home was constructed. She said the proposed home looks to be much less onerous than a number of the other larger homes located further up the hill. Mayor Thome closed the public hearing. MOTION: It was m/s by Pentin /Brown to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval for Design Review and approve a Growth Management Agreement for 8019 Golden Eagle Way. Vice Mayor Brown said she hoped to see these neighbors ultimately embrace one another as such and that the appellant's could appreciate what they still have in terms of one of the most fabulous views in all of Pleasanton. Mayor Thome reopened the public hearing for the appellant's rebuttal. Mr. Monzo said he took exception to Ms. Cunliffe's comments, noting that his albeit remodeled home was constructed prior to hers. He stated that the proposed project is not in compliance with the codified Design Guidelines and that he would like to see some mitigation through relocation of the home. He said he has reviewed his legal options and understands that the Council is his final option for administrative appeal. He argued that the city's definition of median home size differs significantly from what exists within Golden Eagle, which has a median size of 5,500 square feet. Mr. Dommer explained that it makes little sense to count the covered porch as part of the structure's mass when it accounts for only 15 of the home's 110 -foot width. He also explained that pushing the second story back could be accommodated with a covered porch, which would not require additional grading, rather than increasing the first floor footprint. Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. Councilmember Narum asked staff to comment on the Design Guidelines being codified. Mr. Weinstein explained that the Design Guidelines were adopted by the city and that its language is very clear in terms of the Guidelines being used to guide development in the area. However, the rules regarding second story setbacks and grading are not prescriptive, as is made very clear by the language of the Guidelines. While these specific elements were adopted by the city their implementation is inherently flexibility. The document's introduction states that the Guidelines "are not meant to be a coverall document but rather to provide preliminary information and data that will assist the owner and his agents in initial decision making." The langauge regarding grading indicates that grading should not exceed 40% of the lot area or 20,000 square feet, whichever is smaller, without approval of the city and HOA. This clearly suggests that additional grading could be allowed on the site with the proper approval. The second story setback language for this particular lot says that the design should produce a home that is horizontal in character and does not accentuate vertical features. This langauge does not necessarily preclude a second story but does require some design creativity. These are all indications that the Guidelines are fairly flexible and not prescriptive in terms of resulting in a specific design. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 18 June 2, 2015