PC 081314 - Laserfiche WebLink

spending time to visit her home and view the proposed remodel. She also thanked George and Jennifer Schmitt for their willingness to put up the story poles. Ms. Bengtson stated that much of what she has to say is repetitive of her letter to the Commission, she will try to be brief and only cover only the important points. She then handed the Commissioners two sets of photos to review: one set is of three neighborhood homes; and the second set of two is from her backyard, one with story poles and the other with a simulate roof of the remodel. Ms. Bengtson stated that she has lived in her home since 1986, and one of the primary reasons she purchased her home was the west - facing backyard which provides an open and lovely view of Pleasanton Ridge, exactly framing Augustine Bernal Park. She indicated that over time, she has landscaped her garden to provide privacy to the Schmitts' one - bedroom window facing her yard and to mask the Schmitts' storage shed adjacent to their common fence, but leaving the mid -area open to the ridge view. Ms. Bengtson stated that she will not dwell on the character of the neighborhood or the effort of the neighbors to maintain their homes as one -story, as the staff report covers that completely and she believes the Commission has received other input regarding that issue. She indicated that the scope of the design review criteria provides a guideline for evaluating projects, and in her opinion, the proposed project fails to meet several of the criteria: it is not in scale with the adjoining buildings; the contemporary architecture design is not compatible or in harmony with the ranch style of the adjoining buildings; and it is not consistent with the neighborhood character. She noted that the three photos she handed the Commission of the neighborhood homes show the architectural style and scale of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Bengtson stated that the proposed remodel does not preserve the view she enjoys and, in fact, will result in the nearly complete loss of the view from her backyard, replacing that view with roof mass. She referred to the two photos of her backyard showing the impact of the proposed remodel on her property and noted that the architect's thought that cutting back the shrubs will do the job is not correct. She noted that the remodel will result in a long, narrow strip of land on the east side of the Schmitts' property, at times just seven feet in width, thus limiting their option for landscaping. She further noted that it would then seem that the only way to mask the roof mass would be from her property, requiring complete re- landscaping of her yard, plus years of plant growth to be successful. He indicated that she finds that solution unacceptable. Ms. Bengtson stated that in an earlier email, Mr. Schmitt noted that his remodel will increase everyone's home value in a positive way. She indicated that she lives in her home, and the enjoyment of her home does not reside in its resale value, but rather in the satisfaction she receives indoors and out. She suggested that in the case of her home, a realtor might question the value of an upscale home next door increasing the value of her home when the roof mass of that upscale home blocks an open view to the ridge. She stated that somehow, she thinks a view of the ridge trumps a next -door PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 6 of 32