PC 111214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Bengtson stated that during the 60 days between the two meetings, she sent two emails to George Schmitt, and he responded to both, but no invitation for dialogue was forthcoming. She added that she has never met the architect. She indicated that the optimistic but naive logic told the reason she and others were not being contacted for some dialogue by the applicant was that the submittal under preparation would not be controversial, and at the end of 60 days, she was notified that the revised submittal was available for review. She noted that the revised submittal was most disheartening, and she wondered why no one had had the courtesy to share the direction they were headed in the revised application. She indicated that she certainly would have quickly told them that the revised version, while preserving a bit more ridge view, replaces a neutral roof of the first submittal with the second story of the wedding cake design, along with the two windows overlooking all of her backyard, patio area, garden, and pool. She added that the proposed structure shown so prominently from her home in the revised application is far more visually intrusive than the first submittal, and telling her that the windows will be opaque and inoperable avoids the fact that while a permit is required for changing windows located above ten feet, in practice, there is no oversight, and she would again be left to come and complain. Ms. Bengtson stated that in tonight's staff report, the applicant is excused from working with the neighbors stating that essentially it would do no good as the neighbors would only be satisfied with a one -story home. She indicated that to her, more issues were at stake than one or two stories, and it appears that the applicant and staff believed that the revised submittal offered a good solution to my concerns, and her opinion was unimportant. She pointed out that Pleasanton prides itself on retaining and encouraging civil discourse between those of diverse opinions, and the process for this application to date has certainly not reflected the "Pleasanton way." She added that if the applicant would have met with her and the neighbors to review remodeling goals and practical options under consideration, she suspects the original application may have been processed administratively. She noted that knowing the options, she certainly would have supported the initial application over the revised one, although she and many of the neighbors would clearly prefer a one -story plan. She thanked the Commissioners for their time and asked that they deny this application. Karl Hagmaier stated that he has lived in Rosepointe for 47 years and that prior to the construction of Rosepointe, he and his wife met with the developer, Ray Martin, who showed them the plans for the homes and the roads and told them that Rosepointe would contain only one -story homes. He indicated that they liked the plans and decided to have Mr. Martin build their home. Mr. Hagmaier stated that they have enjoyed living in Rosepointe all of these years and would hate to see this development ruined by having existing one -story homes remodeled into two -story homes. He added that allowing this two -story addition would reduce single -story availability which would allow older people and handicapped people to live there. He noted that Rosepointe is a wonderful development the way it is, unique and well maintained. He pointed out that a two -story addition does not fit and asked the Commission to make the right decision and deny this request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 12, 2014 Page 9 of 35