My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031010
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 031010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
1/4/2011 10:43:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/10/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
In conclusion, Mr. Briggs stated that even if the homes were pigeon-holed into the <br />custom home category, they fail explicit requirements set forth in the Serenity design <br />guidelines. <br />Robert Miller, M.D., Appellant, stated that he is a physician and has been in the Bay <br />Area for eight years. He indicated that Mr. Briggs has highlighted many of the details of <br />the appeal and added that he made the financial commitment to purchase his lot with <br />the idea of having a custom home which he always dreamed about. He noted that <br />Ponderosa Homes and Mr. Babbitt should be made to follow the Serenity design <br />guidelines, which requires time, effort, and thinking when designing a custom home. He <br />stated that when he learned of this application at the end of December, he was <br />surprised at how the homes were laid out.He indicated that they tried to talk with <br />Ponderosa Homes to make Ponderosa understand where they were coming from and <br />questioned why a unique design could not be arrived in lieu of the proposed two similar <br />designs. He expressed his disagreement with staff in that the homes are not “custom <br />enough.” He added that he and the other appellants have dreamed of building <br />custom-designed homes and have worked hard to get to where they are. He stated that <br />they feel this dream is being threatened and that they will not waiver in their position. <br />Phil Benzel, Appellant, stated that he had the opportunity to build a custom home in San <br />Luis Obispo and that he went through the Planning Commission for his custom home on <br />Lot 12. Regarding the concept about the homes being “custom enough,” he indicated <br />that after spending six months working with Terry Townsend, his custom house was <br />deemed not “custom enough” and was required to put in an additional 130 feet of <br />wainscoting with stone on a two-story façade, for an additional cost of $50,000. He <br />added that he had to return to the Commission to receive approval for special relief to <br />remove some at the back end since there are only two homes in the vicinity that can <br />see down on his house. He noted that there will be potentially four homes around him <br />and a home on the top of the hill that can see the back of his house; however, the <br />house behind his cannot see his house. <br />Mr. Benzel agreed with Mr. Briggs that the proposed homes are not “custom enough” <br />and felt they should be made to at least stand up to the standards of his home, where <br />all elevations must be similar. He also noted that most of the homes would be visible <br />from either the golf course or from the Wentworth property. He added that Ponderosa <br />should be required to spend an additional $50,000 for stonework in the same manner <br />that he was. He noted that when he met with Ms. Hardy initially, he provided changes <br />in the range of 200 square feet, mainly to change the massing of the first floor and <br />assuming they will build at $125/square feet, which is less than $30,000 additional total <br />cost for Ponderosa. He indicated that Ponderosa rejected his suggestions. <br />Mr. Benzel stated that Ponderosa is proposing the same exact floor plan and square <br />footage as the houses they are building in another area in town. He added that <br />although the elevations are different, the garage entrance was not changed, relatively <br />inexpensive additions were done for some of the porch work, very little rock work was <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 10, 2010 Page 6 of 25 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.