PC 031010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hardy continued that they have also reviewed the guidelines, findings, and architectural review approval, and there has been no discussion of the design of the homes in the appellant’s presentation. She agreed there are two floor plans that repeat themselves but noted that each home is unique in that they each have their own distinct elevations. She added that the floor plans have been used elsewhere in Pleasanton on Mohr Avenue; however, the lots have different elevation styles. She noted that the elevation styles for these five homes are unique to themselves and that Ponderosa has also never designed a “Prairie” elevation. She stated that while the “Ranch” is a common element, it is used throughout California. She added that she could return and discuss architecture elements, enhancements added to the homes beyond what staff required, and re-siting of the homes in trying to respond to being good neighbors. Ms. Hardy urged the Commission to approve the applications. Mr. Briggs stated that Ms. Hardy is correct in stating that the appellants have not gone into the actual design requirements inside the guidelines and applied those to these homes because they do not believe they need to reach that question. He stated that he thinks they can quickly show that the homes do not even meet the most fundamental requirements in the design guidelines. He noted that on pages 15-22 of the Serenity design requirements, Section 6.1 includes seven pages of general requirements, and Subsection D of the section on “Goals” states:“Articulated plans and visually interesting design as opposed to flat walls without detailing are required on each façade.” He then displayed a flat wall of the side view of Lot 10, stating that he would have to drive down this street and look at it every day, and that this fails the requirement that “All exterior elevations shall be designed with similar or complementary elements with regard to color, texture, material, form and detailing. All sides of the house must have similar or complementary details.”He stated that Item F states “Architectural style and detailing must be consistent on all sides of the home.” He presented a side view of Lot 10, which looks nothing like the front view. He noted that the next section talks about building height and mass and added that all elements must be reviewed if any decision is made to proceed further. Mr. Briggs stated that Serenity requires all fencing to be open, of wrought iron rather than solid; hence, the lots are very open and can be viewed from many angles. He noted that for this reason, the sizes of the homes become prominent and are easily viewable from side angles, particularly if they are corner lots. He indicated that what Ponderosa has done is design a typical tract house where there would be a wood fence going up to the fireplace. He reiterated that the Serenity design requirements are set up in a way to preclude a production or tract house from being built on the lots. Mr. Briggs then stated that the guidelines also state that “side entry garages should be encouraged and used whenever possible.” He noted that the lots are large at about three-fourths of an acre, which would make it easy to design a house with side entry garages. He noted that on several proposals, Ponderosa has made no effort to do a side-entry garage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 10, 2010 Page 5 of 25