PC 052720 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pace inquired about the property orientation, landscape plan and building pad for Lot 1 while asking about the visibility from Alisal Street/Sycamore Road and Dale Way, given the property massing. He further stated the previous concerns regarding visibility from Dale Way and from the street, referencing the previous discussion around the massing of the property and its consistency with the other homes in the area being it's in a more rural part of the community. Ms. Stewart explained the front yard of Lot 1 was on Sycamore Road; Dale Way is part of the property but would be reserved for trail use. She further stated the visual simulation included a pool house to demonstrate the look of an ADU, since an ADU legally could not be prohibited from the lot. She discussed the difficulty in obtaining a good visual from Dale Way due to the program simulation, however, a six-foot fence would be constructed along Dale Way, which will block a majority of the view into the backyard. She stated the house was positioned to the far east in order to minimize the visual impact of the house and allow for outdoor living space. She referenced the red outline on the visual simulation as the building pad, stating through the design review process, the visual impact could be minimized. Commissioner Pace inquired about the 70-foot setback on Lot 1 noting the difference from setbacks for other homes within the development. He then asked about the difference from the proposed buildable pad in comparison to other homes within the development along Sycamore Road. Ms. Stewart responded the average setback for the other homes on Bridal Creek was 43 feet, stating the agricultural minimum was a 30-foot setback; the setback for Lot 1 was 70 feet, which was much further back than the other homes on Bridal Creek. Commissioner Allen referenced the visual simulation and inquired if it was the same as was currently being proposed in regard to square footage. Ms. Stewart confirmed the visual simulation displayed depicted the current proposal based on the comments previously provided by the Planning Commission at the January 22, 2020 Workshop. Ms. Soo clarified the visual simulation currently displayed was for the current proposed plan; she then displayed the previous site plan from the January 22, 2020 Workshop, stating the square footage of the house in the previous plan was slightly smaller than the one currently being proposed. Commissioner Allen stated the floor area ratio (FAR) for Lot 1 was 15-percent without the garage; when reviewing the table provided in the packet materials, many of the homes on Bridle Creek were also at 15-percent FAR. Ms. Stewart stated the proposed FAR was as allowable, although the future property owner might decide to build something smaller. She noted the other homes on Bridle Creek had a `block' look where the second story was more prominent versus the layout of what was being proposed; for Lot 1 , due to the 40-percent limitation, the home had less of a `block' appearance. Commissioner Allen questioned the applicant's previous reference to maximum square footage and stated a property owner could legally add an 800-square-foot ADU on Lot 1 , according to the state law, which was not currently reflected in the proposed plan. Ms. Stewart referenced previous conversations with staff regarding adding an ADU to the proposed plan, however, due to the state continuously making changes to the law and the allowable size, it was hard to amend the proposed plan while keeping up with those changes; looking at what had been done for similar size homes will help make reasonable comparisons. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 May 27, 2020