PC 022410 - Laserfiche WebLink

to a Craftsman bungalow element where mostly stucco is in use. With respect to the question regarding Lot 3, Ms. Hardy stated that she spoke with Mr. Townsend and the lot owner, who indicated that they are in the process of designing a home in a 3,600-square-foot range. Ms. Hardy continued that when Ponderosa first learned of the opportunity to purchase lots in the subdivision, the Ponderosa staff looked carefully at all of the appropriate documentation and visited the site which has great lots and affords beautiful views. She noted that they looked at all features and, given the market, they came to the conclusion that the floor plans they designed for their seven lots on Mohr Avenue with a minimum of 20,000 square feet would be appropriate for this location. She added that these are not the same floor plans as indicated by Mr. Briggs; the floor plans have been modified; most notably, the garages have a turned orientation on two of the three plans, the houses are completely different in terms of architectural styling, architectural features, and façade treatment. Ms. Hardy expressed interest that Mr. Briggs had indicated that this is not the primary emphasis of the appeal as it was her understanding up until now that design was the real issue. She indicated that Ponderosa’s proposal is consistent with the design guidelines for Serenity at Callippe, which is the governing document for the development. She noted that now she understands the issue relates to “custom” versus ‘tract” and further noted that all references have been to “custom home sites.” She added that Mr. Briggs references to “custom home lot” are from internal documents, written by staff in the form of a letter or memorandum, which are not the governing documents for the project. With respect to page 7 of the design guidelines referred to by Mr. Briggs, Ms. Hardy indicated that the definition of a custom home site with or without improvements refers to the lot and that the resolution and ordinance that adopted the Tentative Map and PUD, respectively, specifically refer to 12 new, buildable lots. She emphasized that what they feel is the most important fact is that these houses each have a uniquely different architectural design for the floor plans; they have repeated floor plans on two of the lots, but each of the houses has a specific, uniquely different elevation style to that particular floor plan. Ms. Hardy stated that Mr. Townsend, the co-author of the design guidelines, did a peer review of the plans and added quite a bit of enhancements to the homes before they were made aware there would be an issue and an appeal would be filed. She noted that they were particularly excited about the site plan change. Ms. Hardy stated that she thought Mr. Briggs made a good point that the appeal is not about the site planning or architectural design but about the definition of “custom” versus “tract.” She added that she was not certain whether this matter was within the purview of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 24, 2010 Page 9 of 17