CCMIN060215 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 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 Thorne 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 Thorne 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 City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15 June 2, 2015