My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060215
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN060215
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2015 3:12:45 PM
Creation date
7/29/2015 3:12:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/2/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Vice Mayor Brown asked and Mr. Weinstein confirmed that landowners do not have the authority to require that <br /> adjacent property owners prune their vegetation to preserve or improve views, nor do lots in Golden Eagle come <br /> with any sort of view guarantee. <br /> Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing. <br /> Nagib Haddad, thanked staff for its presentation and offered to have his architectural team answer any questions. <br /> Jerry Dommer of Dommer Architects, representing the appellant, identified himself as the architect of record for <br /> the Golden Eagle development project as well as the preparer of the master plan layout and draft design <br /> guidelines. He stressed that the later were crafted to ensure that the hillside would not be overrun by large homes <br /> but rather that homes would be as friendly to the natural landscape as possible. He disagreed with staffs <br /> perspective that the Design Guidelines are suggestive, as Mr. Monzo was told by planning staff. He said he spoke <br /> with former city Planner Brian Swift regarding the Design Guidelines and was informed that by being approved <br /> and codified in Ordinance No. 1236, the Design Guidelines essentially became planning code for the Golden <br /> Eagle development. This codified language, or law, includes a stipulation that homes on sites with slopes <br /> exceeding 15% shall have split-level floor plans, with the architectural character to be promoted with a ranch-style <br /> low profile design and second-story massing located to the rear of the home. Designs are also encouraged to <br /> nestle into the landscape rather than dominate it. He showed several examples of the single-family ranch-style <br /> homes envisioned by the Design Guidelines, several of which included split-level designs. He explained that the <br /> split-level nature should be apparent from the exterior of the home, which the applicant's is not. He reviewed one <br /> of the proposed site elevations, noting that the second floor is set back only 3 feet from the primary front wall of <br /> the home, not the 10 feet that some have suggested by including the open-sided porch. He said he felt there has <br /> been a grave misconception by staff that the Design Guidelines are suggestive when in fact they are essentially <br /> codified law. He also said he felt that the other Golden Eagle homes used by staff are inaccurate as comparables. <br /> He showed several photos depicting the appellant's existing view of Mt. Diablo from their living room as well as <br /> one looking on to the project story poles. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked how much of the view would be preserved if the second story were to meet what Mr. <br /> Dommer's interpretation of the Design Guideline's setbacks require. <br /> Mr. Dommer said that if the second floor were moved back to create a true split-level design, the view of Mt. <br /> Diablo would be much less impacted. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked if he felt the project would be compliant with a 15-foot second story setback. <br /> Mr. Dommer confirmed, though acknowledged that the Guideline's stipulate split-level and not a specific setback. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Dommer confirmed that even if the second story were moved back, the <br /> appellant's views would still be impacted. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown noted that the appellant's view is already partially obstructed by their own garage. <br /> Mr. Dommer explained that the garage eave is not visible from all areas of the appellant's living room. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown noted that shifting the house back would require more grading, which would also violate the <br /> Design Guidelines. <br /> Mr. Dommer explained that perhaps the proposed home is too large for the lot if it cannot completely conform to <br /> code. Nonetheless, he thought it could be done with some creative landscaping and grading. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked and Mr. Dommer confirmed that the appellant team would then also wish to control the <br /> potential for any vegetation to obscure their views. She said she understood that the original project proposal <br /> called for an 8,000 square-foot home, which the applicant reduced in part to address the appellant's concerns. <br /> Mr. Weinstein deferred to the applicant for specifics but said there were a few project iterations before reaching <br /> staff. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15 June 2,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.