Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Patel showed transpazencies of the proposed project and submitted a letter detailing the applicants' <br />efforts to comply with staff recommendations and further identifying the requested modifications. He <br />described the neighboring home under construction, nothing that it will be 5,600 squaze feet with a <br />four-caz garage, a swimming pool, and formal landscaping. He stated that the reason that house does not <br />have size restrictions is because it does not face Foothill Road. He noted, however, that the applicants <br />have been awaze of the 4,500 squaze foot limitation since the PUD was originally approved. He also <br />commented that the original plans submitted to the Planning Department were in compliance with all <br />design review guidelines. <br />Mr. Patel further reported that the applicants' extended family will be living with them in the home. He <br />stated that the applicants aze from India where it is very common for extended family to live together. <br />Therefore, after further considering their lifestyle, the applicants felt a strong need for the additional <br />squaze footage. Mr. Patel then provided a detailed description of the original design and the proposed <br />modifications. He also stated that the added square footage cannot be seen from Foothill Road and, if <br />the added square footage was denied, the house would still not look any different than the proposed <br />4,956 square foot home. He stated that the applicant is entitled to build a custom home that meets their <br />needs. However, he feels that City staff has dictated the application from the beginning, stating that the <br />applicants have reluctantly agreed to many suggestions made by staff on the presumption that doing so <br />would ensure approval of the added squaze footage. <br />Mr. Patel further stated that he did not know that staff was recommending denial of the application until <br />he received the staff report this past Saturday. He was very surprised because he said that he was told by <br />staff that if the applicants complied with all other design guidelines, they would have a good chance of <br />getting the additiona1500 squaze feet approved. He expressed extreme disappointment and frustration <br />because he has worked so hard during the past five months to do everything possible to get the <br />_ modification approved. He stated that had he known five months ago that there was no way to receive <br />approval for the additional squaze footage, the applicants would not have pursued the modification and <br />would have settled for the 4,500 squaze foot home. <br />Commissioner Kumazan asked Mr. Iserson whether the applicants and Mr. Patel did, in fact, learn of <br />staffs recommendations only after receiving the staff report. Mr. Iserson stated that he takes issue with <br />Mr. Patel's statements, noting that Mr. Plucker is very conscientious and communicative planner. He <br />also stated that Mr. Plucker made it very cleaz eazly onto Mr. Patel that a major modification means that <br />staff is not in support of the application. Mr. Iserson regrets that Mr. Patel feels that there were <br />inaccuracies by staff; however, he remains confident that Mr. Plucker advised the applicants in advance <br />of their position. He also pointed out that the reason for this heazing is because the applicant has not <br />followed the guidelines. <br />Mr. Patel, again, stated that he was led to believe by Mr. Plucker that adding the additional square <br />footage would not be a problem. He stated that the reason the applicants purchased a custom lot was so <br />they could build a custom home that meets their needs. He reminded the Commission of the applicants' <br />unique lifestyle and need for the added squaze footage and urged the Commission to approve the <br />modification. <br />Commissioner Kumazan stated that he realized that the central issue surrounding this modification is the <br />4,500 square foot limitation. However, he also pointed out that if the additional squaze footage would <br />- not be visible from Foothill Road as stated by Mr. Patel, then he feels that is also a major issue to be <br />considered. Mr. Iserson responded that the intent of staff s recommendations was to remove the square <br />Planning Commission Page 21 Mazch 25, 1998 <br />