PC 031010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Olson asked the Commissioners if they were agreeable to this, and they indicated that they were. Commissioner Pearce requested that staff ensure there is detailing on all four sides that is consistent with the type of house proposed for the three lots. Commissioner O’Connor stated that while his preference would have been to go more custom, he was supportive of going with the three lots. He requested that staff ensure that the same guidelines are used and adhered as was required of other homeowners. Commissioner Pearce inquired if Ponderosa is proposing to withdraw the design review applications for two of the houses. She further inquired if the Commission could craft a motion regarding the three sites or if the Commission would have to do a separate motion for the other two sites since they have not been withdrawn yet. Ms. Harryman stated that there are five different applications and she was not sure if Ponderosa was planning to withdraw two of them. She added that since all these applications are appeals, the Commission could uphold the appeal on Lots 5 and 10 and deny the appeal for Lots 1, 2 and 4. She inquired if the elevations proposed for Lots 1, 2, and 4 would remain exactly the same. Ms. Hardy stated that they plan to keep the same elevations on Lots 1, 2 and 4 and are withdrawing their applications for Lot 5 [PAP-141/PDR-886] and Lot 10 [PAP-140/PDR-887]. Mr. Benzel stated that the issue of massing that was brought up earlier has not been addressed. He noted that if a two-story home were to be built, there would be significant single-story roof lines, and massing would be significant on the first floor. He indicated that the Craftsman home being built is the best of the three, but he would not necessarily say that it had a significant first-story massing. He noted that it has a single-story garage which will be 20 feet by 22 feet on a home that is 4,600 square feet, which puts the first-floor to second-floor ratio just barely over 54-55 percent, which is not even livable area. He noted that if the livable area massing were considered, the first floor to second floor ratio would still be under 50 percent. He indicated that he believes the massing ratio in Hacienda is basically 50 percent, including a few feet of changes in the living room. Mr. Benzel stated that when he worked with Mr. Townsend on his [Mr. Benzel’s] home, Mr. Townsend had indicated that the Planning Commission would probably not approve anything under a 60-percent-40-percent ratio, excluding the garage, which translates to the living area had to be 40 percent or less upstairs and 60 percent downstairs. He noted there are significant foundation costs, in addition to wainscoting costs, for a house of a different size, and he did not feel this had been addressed with the proposed Ponderosa homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 10, 2010 Page 14 of 25