PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Interbitzen noted that they reduced the traffic by reducing the number of lots on the project by 47 lots from 98 to 51 lots. He described the lot characteristics and displayed the phasing plan. He noted that they developed a set of design guidelines and emphasized that this was a lotting application; he noted that the designs for the custom houses would come to the Planning Commission on an individual basis to prevent abuse by future buyers. He noted that they also delineated how the houses would fit into the lots, as well as articulation on the elevations and how the landscaping would fit into the area so that the project truly integrated into the location. He believed it was unfortunate to argue over the FARs for houses that had not yet been designed and that they intended to set the maximum FAR. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the average size house when the applicant designed the visuals for the website, Mr. Interbitzen replied that it was done with 7,500-8,000-square-foot houses. He believed the EIR analysis used 10,000-square-foot houses. Mr. Pavan stated that he believed the EIR visual simulations used 6,600 square feet; staff would confirm the sizes used. Chairperson Fox inquired how the applicant envisioned noticing neighbors outside of the noticing radius but still able to see the house. Ms. Decker noted that was a City process and not governed by the applicant or design guidelines. Staff would certainly include larger areas if there seemed to be impacts and would evaluate that on a case-by-case basis such as is done for other projects. Mike Fotheringham, landscape architect, described both the open space guidelines and resident lot guidelines in detail, as well as the landscaping plan and mitigation tree location. Miles Berger, project architect, Berger, Detmer, Ennis Architects, noted that their goal was to develop design guidelines that would augment the Pleasanton planning process in such a way that they would describe the elements of compatibility of design that would be required of the houses to be designed in the future, as well as establish an architectural review board. That board would be composed of design professionals and neighbors within the development, and eventually run by the HOA. This board would be responsible for implementing the design guidelines. The CC&Rs would require all projects to be approved by the Oak Grove architectural review board before they are eligible to be submitted to the City. He noted that there would be deep setbacks, and the garages would be set back farther than other façades on the building; the houses would not be allowed to align with one another, and the land form would be followed. He believed that FAR was a very good tool and that his own experience in serving on architectural review boards and planning commissions demonstrated to him that the FAR alone will not guarantee a compatible design, flow with the site, or be articulated properly. They tried to add elements that would enhance the process and allow the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 17 of 29