PC 03/25/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

instead of minimizing the appearance of the added square footage, it actually accentuates it. Staff suggested that the applicant reduce the size of the garage in order to reduce the overall mass of the house; however, the applicant is unable to do so because he needs the lazge garage for his extended family. Mr. Iserson also reported that while staff has attempted to resolve as many issues as possible, there are still several design issues which need to be addressed and resolved. He specifically stated that the applicant has proposed to install a gate and fence between the front of the garage and the front yard property line. He pointed out that this is inconsistent with the MRCLDG, which requires this type of fencing to be at least five feet behind the front corner of the home. Although staff has recommended on several occasions that the applicant relocate the fence and gate, the applicant wishes to leave the gate and fence in its current configuration in order to create a gated pazking area. The other main issue that has been unresolved relates to the proposed landscape treatment along the rear property line. Mr. Iserson stated the conditions of the Moller Ranch PUD requires all improvements outside of the building envelope area to be limited to natural landscape features. However, even though the applicant has deleted a number of accessory structures from the building envelope area, staff feels that the proposed landscape plan is still too formal and does not meet the guidelines. Staff is, therefore, unable to support the landscape plan as submitted. In summary, Mr. Iserson reported that staff does not support the increase in the house size. However, he noted that three alternatives have been identified by staff: 1) To deny the PUD modification and design review; 2) To deny the PUD modification and approve the design review application with conditions to limit the house size to 4,500 squaze feet with the reduction occurring on the second floor of the home in order to soften the mass of the home, or; 3) To approve the PUD modification and Design Review Application as submitted. Staff has recommended that the Commission deny the PUD major modification and approve the design review application subject to the condition noted in Exhibit "B". Commissioner Bazker asked for the status of the home next to the applicant's lot. Mr. Iserson advised her that it is currently under construction. He noted that photographs of the applicant's lot and the home under construction have been submitted for the Commission's review. In response to a question by Commissioner Wright, Mr. Iserson stated that if the Commission were to adopt staffs recommendations, further and subsequent design review could be completed by staff. Commissioner Kumazan asked what the square footage is for the home next to the applicant's, and Mr. Iserson stated that it is approximately 5,600 squaze feet. However, he noted that only the first tier of homes is subject to the size restriction, and the home next to the applicant's is on the second tier. In addition, Mr. Iserson reminded the Commission that the 4,500 square foot limitation was identified in the PUD design guidelines. Kazitk R. Patel, ARCHevon, 39039 Paseo Padre, #201, Fremont, California, is the azchitect for the project and represented the applicant. He expressed disappointment that Greg Plucker, the planner he has been working with throughout he applicant, did not present the staff report or attend the meeting. He stated that all along staff has "told us what to do and we have done it", assuming that the application would be approved if they followed staffs recommendations. Mr. Iserson advised Mr. Patel that it is not common practice for the planner assigned to a project to attending the meeting. Planning Commission Page 20 March 25, 1998